Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 18th May, 1956, for the Whitsun Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Peter Freeman, esquire, Member for Newport, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DOVER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL [Lords]

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Government Departments (Office Accommodation, London)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Works how many additional square feet of office accommodation have

been provided for Government Departments in London since October, 1951; and the total cost thereof.

The Minister of Works(Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): Excluding Post Office accommodation, new hirings and new Crown buildings in the period mentioned amount to 1,243,000 square feet at an annual cost of £530,000. But against this 2,650,000 square feet of office space has been given up, at an annual saving of £936,000. Since October, 1951, there has therefore been a net reduction of 1,400,000 square feet, and a net annual saving of £406,000.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: How does the Minister justify the continued expansion of new building that is going on, bearing in mind that over the past five years we have had 50,000 fewer people employed in the civil Departments? What is the use of asking other people to economise if the Government do not set an example?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that Government building has been very much curtailed. What is behind my Answer, of course, is the fact that we are surrendering requisitioned property—with which I am sure, the hon. and gallant Gentleman agrees—and replacing it by hirings, and, to a smaller extent, new buildings.

Deep Shelters, London (Fire Precautions)

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Works what warnings or representations his Department received about the danger of fire in the London


deep shelters; and by whom they were made.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: No warnings or representations have been received, but at the request of my Department a Report was drawn up by the London Fire Brigade in 1951, when it was proposed to use Clapham South Shelter as a hostel in connection with the Festival of Britain. Twenty-seven of the twenty-nine recommendations in this Report were implemented. The other two were met by alternative arrangements which were agreed with the Fire Brigade.

Mr. Greenwood: Has the Minister forgotten that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) warned the Government about the danger of fire in these shelters? Further, has he seen reports in the newspapers—I quote from the News Chronicle—that fire service chiefs in London had warned the Ministry of Works time and again about the fire hazard of this place? Is the right hon. Gentleman denying that further representations have been made since 1951?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: As regards the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I am not aware of any representations having been made. As to what the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) said in the past, I do not think that he referred to the danger of fire, but only to the unsuitability of those shelters for troops. I think I am right in saying that he did not refer to the danger.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at least one of these deep shelters has been diverted from its original civilian purpose and has been wrongly used as an assembly centre for the Forces? Is it not strange that the right hon. Gentleman should not have made inquiries about the danger of fire for either purpose?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: That is not quite the point which was raised in the supplementary question. I do not think that in the past the hon. and learned Member has referred to danger. However, this is a serious matter, and there is a Question for the Secretary of State for War later today, when it will be gone into further.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Works what steps he is taking to avert the danger of fire in the London deep shelters.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: My fire inspectors, who normally review these London deep shelters every six months, are already engaged in a special review of the fire precautions in each. As soon as I have their report, I will consider whether any further precautions are necessary. I should point out, however, that none of these shelters, with the exception of Goodge Street, has been in human occupation for a considerable time.

Mr. Greenwood: In the meantime, while the right hon. Gentleman is reviewing the situation, will he give an undertaking that these shelters will in no circumstances be used for purposes which might endanger human life?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I can certainly give that assurance.

Prefabricated Houses (Dismantling and Sale)

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Works the price at which disused prefabricated houses are being sold by his Department for shipment abroad.

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Works how many prefabricated houses, built since 1945, have been dismantled; how many have been sold; and, of this number, how many have been exported.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: Up to 30th April, 1956, contracts had been let for the dismantling and sale of 2,927 temporary prefabricated houses. Normally the refrigerators in these houses are disposed of separately. I understand that the purchasers have exported a considerable number of the houses but I have no precise information on this point. Six houses have been sold direct to overseas buyers at an average price of £150, including refrigerators. In addition 2,238 houses have been sold to local authorities as they stand.

Mr. Hunter: Is the Minister aware that reports have appeared in the Press that middlemen have sold these prefabricated houses to Italy, Switzerland and Holland at prices up to £1,500? Will he fully investigate the whole matter?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I will certainly look into that. As I have said in my Answer, I have no precise information about that point, but obviously any prefabricated houses sold abroad will cost more, with freight charges, etc., than if they are sold at home.

Mr. Collins: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these prefabricated houses have been dismantled and are awaiting sale, how they are advertised for sale and in what lots they are offered?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I cannot say without notice how many there are at present, but the practice is that they are advertised and put up for competitive tender. I will let the hon. Member know the figure.

Mr. Dudley Williams: In view of the fact that these houses were designed to last only ten years, does my right hon. Friend not think that the firm responsible for selling them abroad is showing first-class selling ability?

Mr. Gibson: On what grounds of policy is the pulling down and sale of these temporary houses justified, in view of the enormous demand which exists for housing people who have no home to live in? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the whole matter?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: The matter is governed by the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944, which provided that after 1954 local authorities would be entitled to have the houses removed unless the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland considered that housing conditions necessitated their retention. In view of that Act, this question should be directed to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. My Department really acts as the agent for sales.

Fixed Price Tenders (Nationalised Industries)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Works, in connection with his policy for extending the area of fixed price contracts in a maximum value of £100,000, what arrangements he proposes to make to permit price variation or escalator clauses in such contracts in respect of any increased charges and tariffs by the

nationalised coal, gas, electricity and transport industries as may occur during the currency of contracts, and in consideration of the fact that private enterprise contractors have no control over the charges and tariffs imposed by nationalised industries.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: None, Sir. The point of my experiment of seeking fixed price tenders for selected projects undertaken by my Ministry is to find contractors who are prepared to accept all risks of fluctuation in costs.

Mr. Nabarro: While fixed price contracts are a very desirable principle, how can the policy possibly be effective so long as nationalised industries, notably the coal industry, continue the sort of practice, announced this morning, of increasing the cost of coal, leading consequentially to increases in the price of gas, electricity, freights and steel, and to further wage demands? Will my right hon. Friend attack this matter at the source, that is, by a policy of stabilising nationalised industries' charges?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I think that I should remind my hon. Friend that this scheme, which is limited at present to certain projects by my Ministry, is a voluntary one, and there is no compulsion whatsoever on anybody to come forward on the terms that we suggest. The wider subject which my hon. Friend raised is not for me to answer. It is a matter for the Ministers concerned with nationalised industries.

Pay (Cost-of-Living Additions)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Works the number of employees in his Department whose wages or salaries are automatically governed by a rise or fall in the cost-of-living figure; and by how much his annual wage bill will rise by virtue of the rise to the cost of living during the last twelve months of 1s. 6d. in the £.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: The wages of 4,760 industrial employees of my Department are automatically governed by a rise or fall in the cost-of-living figure. The increase in the annual wage bill by virtue of the rise in the cost of living during the last twelve months is about £50,000.

Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this matter, and point out to him that there are hundreds of thousands of workers in thousands of industries in the country whose wages and conditions are governed by the rise and fall in the cost of living? If the Chancellor is really concerned, will he, rather than make a "phoney" appeal to the trade unions, do something to implement the promises made consistently by the present Government since 1950 to reduce the cost of living? When are we going to get a reduction in the cost of living?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: That question, which I see was addressed vicariously to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is well-known to my right hon. Friend, quite apart from his reading of HANSARD.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALACE OF WESTMINSTER

Modern Cleaning Apparatus

Mr. K. Thompson: asked the Minister of Works what recent steps he has taken to introduce modern cleaning devices into the Palace of West-minister.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. J. R. Bevins): Responsibility for cleaning the Palace of Westminster is divided between various authorities. In those areas which are under the control of my right hon. Friend up-to-date machines are used wherever possible, but he will be happy to consider any other suggestions from the hon. Member for improving the methods used

Mr. Thompson: Is my hon. Friend not aware that in this age it is an anachronism to have scores of people sloshing round with mops and buckets, and will he not get together these various authorities with a view to seeing how the introduction of modern devices can save a lot of the labour at present expended on the job and which is not doing it terribly well?

Mr. Bevins: Of course, as my hon. Friend knows, the division of responsibility in this matter is rather an old English custom, but I assure him that, so far as my right hon. Friend is concerned, we use a considerable number of modern machines, even though they

are not much in evidence after 10 o'clock in the morning.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Minister consider introducing hand trucks so that the men collecting heavy bags of waste paper in the morning can at least have some twentieth century devices to help them?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, we will consider anything.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Grant-Aided Research Associations (Information)

Mr. K. Thompson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what advice he gives to commercial research associations in receipt of grant aid from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research as to the terms on which they should make information available to others than members of their association.

Mr. Bevins: The research associations in receipt of grant aid are advised to make information available as widely as is possible without prejudicing the welfare of their own members and of the industries they serve.

Mr. Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, whilst it is undoubtedly desirable that the information should be circulated as widely as possible without prejudice to the interest of the members, the main interest is surely that of the country as a whole and that if possible this information should be more widely disseminated? Will my hon. Friend get in touch with his noble Friend to ensure that every step is taken to spread the information as widely as possible, without any strings at all?

Mr. Bevins: My hon. Friend must realise that these research associations are autonomous bodies, and my noble Friend is in no position to dictate to them what they should and should not do. I agree that it is desirable that information should be disseminated as widely as possible, but it is also desirable that the associations should stand more and more on their own feet financially, and the supply of information from research associations is an incentive to membership.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to point out to the Minister concerned that it is the custom to address you when an hon. Member is being answered, because otherwise hon. Members cannot hear the reply?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can address his own request. I was able to hear the Minister, even though he had his head turned away from me. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) sits in a part of the House where, if he did not address me, he would not address any Member at all.

Mr. Lewis: In view of the fact that I did not hear your last remark, Sir, may I assure you that I shall take the opportunity of reading it in HANSARD, as I shall also read the reply of the Minister?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Danger Areas

Sir C. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for War how many danger areas still exist which have not yet been cleared of mines and other explosives; where these areas are; and when they will be cleared.

The Secretary of State for War(Mr. Antony Head): There are eight such areas. Minefields at Fairlight Glen and Mundesley, which we hope to have cleared early in 1958; five old training areas at Lydd, Trawsfynydd, Warcop, Fylingdales, and Crocknakeeferty, and a war-time ammunition depot at Abinger Common. These six areas should be cleared this year.

Barracks, Crookham (Conditions)

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has now investigated conditions at Queen Elizabeth Barracks, Crookham, referred to in a leter from the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Head: I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary sent the hon. Member a reply on 8th May.

Mr. Collins: But why does the right hon. Gentleman have to wait for a Parliamentary Question before dealing with the unnecessary and irritating practices to which the letter referred, and which

arouse such cynicism and contempt in the minds of young soldiers? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what action has been taken about the military genius who was responsible for ordering his men to polish stirrup pump hoses every day, to blacken the soles of P.T. shoes, and to scrub broom handles every day?

Mr. Head: I think that the detailed reply gives the answers to the specific points raised, some of which were so, and some of which were not so. I have said before, and I say again, that soldiers have to be clean both in kit and in barrack rooms, but that driving that beyond a certain extent to ridiculous lengths is discouraged in the Army and is not to be done. However, that does not mean that soldiers do not have to be spotlessly clean in their turn-out.

Personal Cases

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for War why Private Churchley, prior to his discharge from the Army, was requested to appear on parade every hour for fourteen days with a caliper on his leg at Royal Victoria Hospital, Netley, Hampshire; and whether he will take action to discontinue this kind of punishment for soldiers suffering from leg injuries.

Mr. Head: Private Churchley was fit to walk about and take limited exercise during his convalescence. Indeed in such cases the patient is encouraged to take what exercise he feels capable of. Private Churchley had frequently walked to the nearest village about half a mile away. The reason why he reported at frequent intervals was that he was confined to barracks as a result of having broken out of barracks on a previous occasion.

Mr. Yates: But is the Minister aware that for the absence without leave this man was punished by being asked to go up and down three flights of stairs every hour for fourteen days? Is not that rather ridiculous punishment for a man with a broken leg and a caliper on it?

Mr. Head: It was not every hour; it was between the hours of four in the afternoon and 10 o'clock. For the three flights of stairs there is a lift in working order on which it is stated that men with leg injuries or other injuries may use this lift. He did use it.

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will reconsider the cases of Mrs. C. K. Cordy of 28, Coldbrook Road, Cadoxton, Barry, and Mrs. A. Spence of 30 Merthyr Street, Barry Dock, in the light of correspondence which he has received from the hon. Member for Barry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Head: I have carefully reviewed these two cases and regret that I cannot change my previous decisions.

Mr. Gower: Does my right hon. Friend know that since I first wrote to him about the case of Mrs. Cordy, her husband has died and therefore the need for her to have her son near home has been thereby increased? In the case of Mrs. Spence, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the family circumstances, plus the illness of her mother, would appear to merit special consideration?

Mr. Head: I have been into these cases through S.S.A.F.A. I am informed that in the first case there is a married sister living near to this lady, and in the second case I have written to my hon. Friend. I do not think that I should be justified in altering the decisions.

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for War under what authority the commanding officer of D Troop, Line Group, School of Signals, Catterick Camp, refused the application for demobilisation of 23161200 Signalman S. Bough, whose release from the Army had already been approved by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Head: I regret that there was unnecessary delay in discharging this soldier. The necessary authority was issued on 16th May, and Signalman Bough was sent home last week.

Sir L. Plummer: It took six weeks to discharge the boy. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the case, because the adjutant is reported to have told him that a medical certificate about his mother's health was required before he would be released, although the right hon. Gentleman's Department had agreed six weeks previously that he should be released?

Mr. Head: Part of the delay was caused by the fact that, when the matter, in principle, was considered, it was done

at the request of Signalman Bough's mother. Therefore, the first thing was to make certain that Signalman Bough wanted release. We could not have released him without his own request. There was a secondary delay in the unit, and I am attempting to find out what happened.

Boy Soldiers, Cyprus

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the latest developments in Cyprus, he will reconsider his decision and remove from that island boy soldiers who are under 18 years of age.

Mr. Head: No, Sir.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that this kind of answer is highly unsatisfactory in a case of this description? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is considerable anxiety about these boys being retained in Cyprus and that, owing to the deteriorating position, grave concern is caused to their parents, so will he reconsider this matter? How does he expect youngsters of this kind to be able to carry on and later to become effective soldiers if he keeps them in Cyprus?

Mr. Head: I have been into this question at some length previously in the House, and I have not the time or opportunity now to repeat all the arguments. I have been into the matter carefully, and I am convinced that the present decision is the right one.

Mr. Strachey: But will not the Secretary of State agree that the situation goes on deteriorating in Cyprus, that as the weeks and months pass it is becoming more and more inappropriate for boy soldiers to be in the area; and that while it may have been reasonable to begin with, it should, since there is no prospect of the present Government finding a solution there, so far as we can see, be clear that Cyprus is no place for a boy soldier today?

Mr. Head: I have been there myself, I have seen these boys and I have seen the conditions. I have also seen all the married families, and there are much younger children there. Although I would not in any way minimise the difficulties and problems of life in Cyprus, I do not think that it is as bad, so far as the boy soldier is concerned, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.

N.A.A.F.I.

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for War what negotiating machinery exists for settling rates of pay and conditions of service for the staff of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes; and what information is available in published documents showing the salaries and conditions of service now applying throughout that organisation.

Mr. Head: The Service Ministers are not responsible for the pay and conditions of service of the staff of N.A.A.F.I. There is extensive negotiating machinery for settling staff matters and wages are in general governed by national or local agreement or in certain cases by statutory wages board orders. There are also staff councils.

Captain Corfield: asked the Secretary of State for War at what date the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes' facilities were withdrawn from the Suez Canal Zone; how many troops remained in that zone after such withdrawal; and for how long.

Mr. Head: They have not been withdrawn.

Captain Corfield: asked the Secretary of State for War what Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes' facilities exist for the troops in Cyprus.

Mr. Head: There are thirty-one canteens, twelve mobile canteens, nine families' shops, one garrison club for other ranks, one sports shop and one leave centre. Five more canteens, two more families' shops and two more leave centres will be opened shortly. In addition, N.A.A.F.I. provides kiosks on some of the bathing beaches.

Captain Corfield: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, where individual units have provided their own canteen facilities, they are able to sell exactly the same goods at substantially lower prices than the N.A.A.F.I. canteen does? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question of the efficiency of the N.A.A.F.I. services in Cyprus?

Mr. Head: As my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate, when units run those canteens they probably do so with free labour.

National Service Men (Compassionate Postings)

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will resume the granting of compassionate postings to National Service men in appropriate cases and where family circumstances merit special consideration; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Head: No, Sir.

Mr. Gower: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the restoration of compassionate postings would appear to be consistent with the changes which have been made in National Service and, in particular, the slowing down of call-up?

Mr. Head: Compassionate postings were stopped in 1947. The policy since then has been to examine every case on its merits and to be as liberal as we can be in providing postings for deserving cases. At the same time, I believe it best to gauge the position both on the percentage of the British Army overseas and how far we are able to go. That we do and, as the position improves, so we are in a position to be more helpful in this matter.

Mr. Bellenger: Why does the right hon. Gentleman continually refer back to 1947? It is nine years since that happened and the conditions were quite different then, when there was a large Army serving overseas, from what they are today. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, since he does not really require so many National Service men now, why he does not give more lenient treatment to some of those troops who have good grounds for a compassionate posting nearer home?

Mr. Head: There is some misunderstanding about this matter. There are no official compassionate postings but we give a good deal of help to many deserving cases throughout the Army. Compassionate posting has been stopped as a right for a long time, but we help in a great many cases.

Mr. Gower: Is it not the case that by removing his power to award compassionate postings, my right hon. Friend has deprived himself of the opportunity of helping in some of these cases?

Mr. Head: No, Sir, because I have the opportunity, although it is not called a compassionate posting, and I frequently make use of it.

Civil Defence Exercise "Try-out"

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on the results of the Civil Defence exercise "Try-out".

Mr. Head: This was a large and complicated exercise, and it will be some time before all the lessons to be learnt from it can be fully digested. It is, however, already clear that those concerned in the exercise have gained valuable experience in operating joint military and Civil Defence headquarters, in the passing of information and in movement by road after a nuclear attack. This was the first opportunity for the Mobile Defence Corps to take part in an exercise in its war-time rôle, and the headquarters of eight battalions were concerned. In general, procedures for cooperation between the Army and the Civil Defence organisation have been well tested.

Mr. Lewis: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the statement, reported in the Press, allegedly made by Lieut.-General Sir Francis Festing, who was in command of Eastern Command during the exercise, that our hydrogen bomb defence is useless, that the whole thing was a complete wash-out, and that it would have been better if the exercise had been called exercise "Wash-out" rather than exercise "Try-out"? Was the exercise not a waste of time and money, according to the officers concerned?

Mr. Head: That statement is completely at variance with the official report which I have had from General Festing.

Mrs. Churchley (Military Police Visit)

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for War what further communication he has received from Mrs. Churchley in regard to the visit to her home by military police on 23rd April; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Head: I understand that my hon. Friend received a letter from Mrs. Churchley pointing out that she had not

invited the military police "to come back on a further occasion to have tea" Mrs. Churchley was indeed kind enough to invite the two military policemen to have tea on their arrival at her house, but she had not invited them to come there for that specific purpose. They had in fact come to visit her unofficially of their own accord.

Mr. Yates: Might I ask the Minister a question which I think is a very serious one for the House? Is he aware that the military police called upon Mrs. Churchley a second time without being invited and that they cross-examined her about writing to her Member of Parliament? Can that question be investigated, because it is a very serious matter? What is it to do with the military police if a woman writes to her Member of Parliament?

Mr. Head: This is the first that I have heard of the point. I have heard nothing about it from Mrs. Churchley. I am informed that the police visited Mrs. Churchley because she had asked them to find out certain questions about her son's pay, which they did, and they called upon her unofficially, without their red caps, in order to give her the answer to her question.

Mr. Strachey: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if it were proved on examination that such a question was asked about writing to Members of Parliament, it would be a most improper one, and that he would correct the officers or men concerned if they had done it?

Mr. Head: I have said repeatedly, and I repeat it now, that every soldier in the British Army is at perfect liberty to write to his Member of Parliament. I have never disputed that, and I have previously stated it in the House.

Guards Depot, Caterham (Meat Ration)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that the meat ration for men under training at the Guards Depot, Caterham, is adequate; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Head: These men receive the normal daily meat ration plus the special


supplement given to troops engaged on strenuous training. Service ration scales are at present being reviewed.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not the case that these men have a tougher programme of drill and physical training than any other recruits to the Army, and that in the view of the authorities at Caterham the meat ration for these men is inadequate? Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the views of the Caterham authorities, and increase the meat ration with the least possible delay?

Mr. Head: I know a lot about rations, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I am aware of the present situation in many places in addition to Caterham.

London Assembly Centre (Fire)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War to make a statement on the fire which occurred at the underground troops assembly centre at Goodge Street, London, on 21st May, 1956, and following days, indicating the number of soldiers who were there at the time of the fire, the units to which they belong, the number, names and units of the persons injured and the extent of the injuries in each case; the present condition of the assembly centre and the damage done to it; and whether he will now finally discontinue the use of this dangerous and unsuitable place as a troops assembly centre.

Mr. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for War to make a statement concerning the fire which occurred in the Goodge Street deep shelter on 22nd May; and whether it is proposed to cease using this shelter as a troops transit camp.

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for War to make a statement On the recent fire in the war-time deep shelter in Tottenham Court Road, with particular reference to what is believed to be the cause of the outbreak.

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for War to make a statement about the outbreak of fire in the underground troop shelter in Tottenham Court Road; and whether he is prepared to discontinue the future use of this transit centre.

Mr. Head: When this fire broke out there were thirty-one members of the permanent staff and ninety soldiers in transit in the London Assembly Centre. There were no casualties. An inquiry will be held to investigate the causes of the fire. The answers to some of the points raised by hon. Members will, therefore, have to await the results of this inquiry.
Although the full extent of the damage caused by the fire is not yet known, I am satisfied that we should not be justified in spending public money to make the underground portion of the Centre fit for further use as a transit centre. We have for some time been urgently seeking alternative accommodation. This did, and still does, present great difficulties because suitable accommodation in central London is extremely hard to find. For the present we have had to make stopgap arrangements which are far from convenient.
I should like to take this opportunity of expressing appreciation of the very fine work of the London Fire Brigade in fighting this fire in extremely adverse conditions.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that he has a duty to young Service men to put them in healthy and safe assembly centres and not in a make-shift place such as this? Does he remember that I have warned him about this place? Will he undertake not to do it again?

Mr. Head: The hon. and learned Gentleman told me that, as I well knew, this was an uncomfortable place to use as a transit centre. Nobody in my Department wanted to use it, but it was a question of finding some accommodaton in central London. As regards the danger of fire, I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is being wise after the event.

Sir F. Medlicott: Can my right hon. Friend say whether smoking was permitted in the shelter, and whether there are any indications that the fire, like so many others, was caused by some careless cigarette smoker?

Mr. Head: That is the subject of a court of inquiry, and we had better await the result of it.

Mr. Gibson: Does the Minister's Answer mean that the War Office will


not use the shelter as a transit centre in future? This is a real point in the minds of at any rate some of us who regard it as more like putting soldiers like rats in a cellar than actually housing them. It ought not to be allowed to continue. I did not understand the Minister's Answer and should like to get the point clear. Did he say what I have suggested?

Mr. Head: Yes, I said that.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the officials of the camp have in the past made representations to his Department about the unsuitability of the camp?

Mr. Head: I cannot answer that question without notice, but I can tell my hon. and gallant Friend that we were well aware of the defects of the place for a considerable time.

Maltese Service Men, United Kingdom

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Secretary of State for War why he has abolished British rates of pay and allowances for Maltese Service men training in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Head: These Service men do receive British rates while serving in the United Kingdom except that other ranks do not qualify for the British nine-year rate.

Mr. Callaghan: Has not the procedure recently been changed? Can the Secretary of State say why?

Mr. Head: The procedure has been identical, with one exception. The nine-year rate was a special incentive to a British citizen to commit himself for nine years to serve anywhere in the world. These men qualify for the three-year and six-year rates but not for the nine-year rate.

Mr. Callaghan: Why?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Potato Imports

Commander Scott-Miller: asked the President of the Board of Trade to state the total tonnage of imports of old ware potatoes since the beginning of 1956; and the duty per ton paid.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. A. R. W. Low): In the first four months of this year 286,000 tons of main-crop potatoes were imported. Except for about 700 tons from the Irish Republic and Commonwealth sources, these imports were subject to duty at the rate of 1s. per cwt.

Commander Scott-Miller: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent licences have been granted for the importation of old ware potatoes to enter the country through the ports of Wisbech, Boston, and Kings Lynn, respectively; and whether such imports are complete, or what is the tonnage still to be imported.

Mr. Low: The licences in question are open individual licences valid until 30th June, 1956, and permit imports through any United Kingdom port. I cannot therefore say what further quantities, if any, may yet arrive at any particular port.

Commander Scott-Miller: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to consult the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the imports of potatoes to ensure that there is nothing which is against the interests of home growers?

Mr. Low: My Department is, of course, constantly in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In addition, we can watch the Customs returns, and returns given us by licence holders, and we have made it known that we may revoke licences without notice at any time we desire to do so.

Mr. Callaghan: In view of the contradictory statements which have been published, can the Minister tell us whether the country is suffering from a shortage of potatoes or a glut of potatoes?

Mr. Low: I am not aware of any contradictory statements. I am merely answering questions.

Captain Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that neither the Government nor British farmers are responsible for the quality of the imported potatoes?

Mr. Low: That is quite true.

Brazil

Mr. K. Thompson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will initiate discussions with the Government


of Brazil with a view to creating conditions in which increased trade can be expected.

Mr. Low: Following discussions with the Governments of the United Kingdom, Federal Germany and the Netherlands, the Government of Brazil in August, 1955, instituted multilateral trade and payments arrangements with those countries. Belgium, Luxembourg and Italy have since become parties. These arrangements have widened the scope for our exports and I do not think that bilateral trade discussions are at present necessary.

Mr. Thompson: Is my right lion. Friend aware that for a long while Anglo-Brazilian trade has been shifting towards a large balance in favour of Brazil, which as a result has considerably reduced its indebtedness to this country? Will he consider reviewing the conditions which Brazil is required to satisfy in the reduction of the outstanding sterling debt?

Mr. Low: I do not think that the time is ripe for that. I am aware that United Kingdom exports to Brazil are increasing.

G.A.T.T. Negotiations, Geneva

Mr. Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the result of the negotiations for tariff reductions which have been taking place at Geneva between the signatories to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Mr. Low: The tariff negotiations at Geneva were formally concluded on 23rd May, when a Protocol embodying their results was signed there on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and by the other countries which took part. It has been agreed that the detailed results shall remain confidential until 7th June. My right hon. Friend hopes to make a further announcement on 7th June.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

£ Sterling (Purchasing Power)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the depreciation in the purchasing value of the £ sterling since June, 1954.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Taking the internal purchasing power of the £ as 20s. in June,

1954, the corresponding figure for April, 1956, is 18s. 3d. This estimate is based on the Consumer Price Index for 1954 to 1955 and the Index of Retail Prices thereafter.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Chancellor aware that, whereas when the Labour Government were in office world prices were continually rising, under the present Government world prices have been falling, or remaining static? Will he therefore explain why the cost of living has gone up faster in the last two years than in any similar period over the last eight or nine years? Can he say when the Government intend to implement the promises which they made from 1950 to 1956 about reducing the cost of living and making the £ worth something? Can we have some explanation?

Mr. Speaker: I think that that is enough for one supplementary question.

Mr. Macmillan: I feel that the hon. Member must have been taking the opportunity of the Recess to make speeches to his constituents, but I shall try to reserve this matter for another winding-up speech.

Mr. Jay: Can the Chancellor at least tell us how soon we will get on to the plateau of stability which he promised us in his speech at Newcastle this weekend?

Mr. Macmillan: I said then that, so far as I could see from the calculations given to me, it was not likely, from either the last round of wage increases, or the result of any action which the Government had taken on subsidies and other matters, that the Index would rise by more than two to three points.

Mr. H. Morrison: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the texts of the official Conservative posters at the General Elections of 1951 and 1950 promising that the cost of living would not go up, and that the Conservatives would protect the purse of the housewife?

Mr. Macmillan: It would be a mistake to use HANSARD for that purpose, otherwise we should have to go back to posters like "Rounding recovery corner" and all those others.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this large matter now.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of the Chancellor's reply, I beg to give notice that, with your assistance, Mr. Speaker, I hope to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Entertainments Duty (Cinemas)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the. the receipts from Entertainments Duty in each of the last three years on cinemas with net weekly receipts of £500 or less or the nearest convenient figure for which statistics are obtainable.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I regret that this information is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Residential Caravan Sites

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what local, authorities have submitted plans for his approval regarding sites for static residential caravans.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): As the Answer is necessarily long and detailed I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Johnson: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary think it a good thing that local authorities should build these sites, with electricity, sanitation and so forth? Would he consider sending a circular on those lines to local authorities?

Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend is considering the issue of a circular on this subject to local authorities.

Following is the answer:

Since 1952, approval has been given to proposals from the following local authorities for the provision of residential caravan sites to be owned by the local authority:

County borough councils:

Coventry.
Darlington.
Exeter.
Portsmouth.
West Bromwich
Worcester.

Borough councils:

Andover.
Chesterfield.
Maidenhead.
Morecambe and Heysham.
Newcastle-under-Lyme.
Nuneaton.
Peterborough.
Reigate.
Scunthorpe.
Uxbridge.

Urban district councils:

Bushey.
Cannock.
Chesham.
St. Austell.
Spalding.
Woking.
Yiewsley and West Drayton.

Rural district councils:

Chesterfield. Eton.
Holderness.
Rugby.
Winchester.

Proposals from the following local authorities are under consideration:
Barnsley County Borough Council.
Maidenhead Borough Council.
Hayes and Harlington Urban District Council.
Sunbury-on-Thames Urban District Council.

Dismantled Prefabricated Houses (Re-erection)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what advice he has given to local authorities with regard to the re-erection, by the authority or by private persons, of dismantled prefabricated houses.

Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend has given no general advice on this subject to local authorities.

Mr. Collins: In view of the fact that fewer than 3,000 of the 150,000 prefabricated houses built have been dismantled and sold, will not the Minister approach his right hon. Friend to see in what ways the remaining houses can be used for housing purposes if they are dismantled and put up elsewhere? Will he give some general advice or instructions to local authorities in this important matter?

Mr. Powell: The appropriateness of doing so, both from the planning and housing points of view, will vary widely locally, and the initiative lies with local authorities in that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Councillors, Rugby (Applications to Minister)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what communications he has had from the Rugby Borough Council and Rugby Rural District Council regarding a dispensation to councillors who are council house tenants to speak and vote in housing debates; and what answer he has given.

Mr. Powell: Two applications for the removal of disability for discussion on specific occasions have been received in the case of the rural district council, and three in the case of the borough. These applications were all granted; one of the applications from the borough related also to voting, and dispensation for this was likewise granted.
My right hon. Friend had previously received, in respect of each authority, an application for a general dispensation, which it was beyond his powers under the Statute to give.

Mr. Johnson: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary see that for a councillor, when he is a council tenant, to vote on a matter affecting thousands of other council tenants is not the same as that councillor voting on a personal matter affecting his own pocket and his own business? In my borough, where there is a slight anti-Socialist majority, this ruling has affected the voting on a controversial differential rents scheme. Will not the Minister give special dispensation in cases where this ruling affects the welfare of thousands of families?

Mr. Powell: This exact question has been fully covered by my right hon. Friend in a circular which he issued to local authorities on 15th May, and of which I will send a copy to the hon. Member.

Premises, Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Planning Permission)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will investigate the circumstances in which the Newcastle City Council has given planning permission for the purchase of a private dwelling-house, 250, Heaton Road, for use for political meetings, in spite of the petition of fifty-four local residents and of the

zoning of the area for residential purposes.

Mr. Powell: No, Sir. Meeting places are often located in residential areas; and this is not a matter in which my right hon. Friend would think it right to question the decision of the responsible local authority.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Minister aware that the house in this case is not a detached house? Should not Conservative Party premises clearly be in as isolated a position as possible? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in this case there have been petitions by local residents to the local authority? Will he not at least consider establishing some rules of conduct for the premises for the protection of local inhabitants?

Mr. Powell: The politics of the users of premises are not a planning matter. It is competent for the local planning authority to attach what conditions it thinks fit to a planning permission, but it would be quite wrong for my right hon. Friend constantly to be over-ruling local authorities' planning decisions

Yorkshire Dales National Park

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he has rejected the establishment of a joint board for the Yorkshire Dales National Park for reasons other than those given in the National Parks Act and whether he consulted the National Parks Commission before making his decision.

Mr. Powell: The answer to the second part of this Question is in the affirmative. As regards the reasons for my right hon. Friend's decision, I would refer the hon. Member to the decision letter, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there has been considerable correspondence on this matter in the Press, The Times, the Manchester Guardian and elsewhere? Would he not agree that experience has shown that a separate joint board is the most desirable form of administration for a national park?

Mr. Powell: That depends upon the particular circumstances of the national park concerned.

Finance

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in view of his decision to begin discussions in the autumn with local authority associations with regard to all aspects of local government finance including industrial derating, he will give an undertaking to have similar discussions with all organisations representing the industries which would be affected by re-rating and in particular the export industries such as the cotton industry which would be particularly vulnerable to the effects of re-rating.

Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend can be assured that the concern of industry in questions affecting derating will not be overlooked in the review of local government finance.

Sewerage Schemes, Madeley and Audley

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware that his refusal to pay lump sum grants towards the costs of the Madeley and Audley sewerage schemes of the Newcastle-under-Lyme Rural District Council compels the council to increase the rate poundage by sixpence; and if, in view of the level of the rates in the rural district, he will reconsider his decision.

Mr. Powell: No, Sir.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that when the council originally negotiated these schemes it was understood that lump sum grants would be paid? Is not it grossly unfair to swing upon ratepayers increased borrowing at a higher rate of interest which should be borne by his Department?

Mr. Powell: It is not yet clear what burden, if any, will be swung on to ratepayers in this case. Loan sanction in respect of the capital sums concerned has not yet been issued, although the schemes are either complete or almost complete. It may well be, therefore, that no additional burden, or only a very slight one, will have to be borne.

Mr. Swingler: Is it not a fact that the hon. Gentleman's Department has notified the council that lump sum grants will not be paid? Is it not, therefore, certain that

the council will have to borrow more money than it originally calculated?

Mr. Powell: The decision to substitute annual grants for lump sum payments was taken by Parliament without a Division.

Household Refuse (Ferrous Scrap Recovery)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proportion of the total household refuse of England and Wales is disposed of by local authorities without any attempt being made to recover valuable materials such as ferrous scrap, paper, glass and textiles; and what steps he is taking to discourage this waste.

Mr. Powell: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available. As regards the second part of the Question, my right hon. Friend has recently issued a circular to local authorities in England and Wales stressing the desirability of recovering ferrous scrap from refuse. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Mr. Russell: Does not my hon. Friend agree that a great deal of waste is tipped without any attempt being made to recover these materials? Does not he also agree that, in addition to ferrous scrap, there are other materials which are valuable, and that considerable imports could be obviated if all refuse was salvaged in this way?

Mr. Powell: Yes. This is an important matter, and the attention of local authorities has been drawn to it upon several recent occasions.

Private Street Works

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the number and value of applications for loan sanction in respect of private street works made by the Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council from the beginning of this year to the latest date for which figures are available; and what quantity of works he has authorised.

Mr. Powell: Three applications, for sums totalling £7,120, have been received. All were rejected.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what


local inquiries are made by his Department before he refuses to sanction applications for loans in respect of private street works.

Mr. Powell: None, Sir, unless the local authority makes a case which indicates that the street or streets in question may be dangerous to health or safety. In such cases, a visit by an engineering inspector may be arranged.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Parliamentary Secretary ensure that local authorities concerned in this matter are informed of this procedure and asked to state the relative urgency of the works involved? Is he aware that his Department's indiscriminate rejection of loan sanction for private street works at present is extremely inefficient, and means that a great number of dangers to health and traffic will continue to exist?

Mr. Powell: The rejection of applications is not indiscriminate, but has regard to the terms of my right hon. Friend's circular of 17th February. In the cases which the hon. Member has in mind, no representations from the local authority have been received since the refusal. But no doubt this Question and answer will draw attention to the matter of inspection.

Mr. Mitchison: Does that answer mean that the indiscriminate, or somewhat indiscriminate, refusal of loan sanction for these private street works is a temporary matter, and is going to be reviewed at the end of six months?

Mr. Powell: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware of the terms of my right hon. Friend's circular, under which these applications are dealt with.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Automation (D.S.I.R. Report)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the Government's Report on Automation is too technical to be widely read by the workers, who fear unemployment as a consequence of automation and if he will therefore authorise the issue of a short, simple and pictorial report dealing with the social aspects of automation and cause this to be distributed free to the workers who are most likely to be affected by it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): As my hon. Friend was informed in answer to his Question on 15th May it is certainly the Government's intention to make information about automation as widely known as possible. To this end, I am informed that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is preparing a simplified version of the Report which was recently issued.

Mr. Osborne: The last Report dealt with the technical aspects of automation and not with the social side, which is causing men to fear that they are going to lose their jobs because of automation. It did nothing to satisfy them and end their just fears. Will my hon. Friend see that the new report deals with the fear of unemployment rather than the technical side of the matter? That is very important.

Mr. Carr: I well appreciate my hon. Friend's point. I think that it is right to publish a shorter version of the existing Report. I would remind my hon. Friend that the implications which he has mentioned will presumably be considered by the National Joint Advisory Council.

Fishermen, Cardiff

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Labour how many fishermen will become unemployed as a result of the decision to close down Neale and West Limited, Cardiff; and what action he is taking to find other work for the men concerned.

Mr. Carr: Fourteen fishermen formerly employed by this firm have registered at the employment exchange. Two have already good prospects of sea-going employment and there should be no great difficulty in offering employment on land for those who wish it.

Mr. Callaghan: Does that mean that the total number of people out of employment is only fourteen? Is it not nearer a hundred?

Mr. Carr: We have no certain knowledge other than that of people who register at employment exchanges—and fourteen is the number of those who have done that. We understand, for example, that the shore staff of twenty-four ship


repairers have already obtained other work, but as far as we are concerned, only fourteen persons have registered.

Trade Unions, Blyth (Dispute)

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken to bring to an end the dispute between two trades unions as to whose members shall load coal mine refuse at Blyth, Northumberland, pending settlement of which dispute a new £50,000 conveyor belt system has been kept idle for seven weeks.

Mr. Carr: My right hon. Friend is aware of this dispute, and negotiations are in progress between the parties. My Department has not been asked to intervene.

Sir F. Medlicott: Would not it be possible, in the interests of all concerned, to avoid these very wasteful stoppages by ensuring that the members of one particular union started the work pending—and entirely without prejudice to—any later decision through the demarcation machinery?

Mr. Carr: We all deplore stoppages of this kind, but I must maintain what has been stated many times before, namely, that negotiation within the industry is the best way of settling disputes of this kind —and that is in progress. My Department is always ready to help if the parties feel that it can give such assistance.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Roads, Bridges and Ferries

Mr. Elector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement on the allocation and progress of work in Scotland relating to the construction, maintenance and management of roads, bridges and ferries in and to the north-east of Scotland as a result of the transfer of responsibility for them to him under the Transfer of Functions (Road, Bridges and Ferries) Order, 1956.

The Secretary of State for Scotland(Mr. James Stuart): I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) on 27th March.

Mr. Hughes: For public convenience, will the Secretary of State issue a schedule indicating when the respective works will be begun and finished, so that contracts can be made and business can go ahead?

Mr. Stuart: I can assure the hon. and learned Member that I have no desire to interfere with the placing of contracts. There has been no change, interruption or cancellation in connection with the programme announced by the Minister of Transport in February, 1955. I must tell the hon. and learned Member, however, that I found some difficulty in answering this Question because it asks me about
roads, bridges…to the north-east of Scotland,
and to the north-east of Scotland lies the North Sea and Norway.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. It is clear that the Minister has obviously and deliberately misunderstood my Question. When I talk about the north-east of Scotland I mean the north-east of Scotland—not the sea beyond the northeast of Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will have better luck with Question No. 55.

Oral Answers to Questions — Road Safety

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland his plans for solving the problems relating to road safety in Scotland arising from the large number of accidents and casualties.

Mr. J. Stuart: The Government's road programme is, of course, aimed at providing the country with roads which can be used safely by modern traffic.
I have also asked local authorities, through their road safety committees, to continue the valuable work they do in educating the public in better standards of road conduct, and to pay particular attention to the safety of children.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Secretary of State study and imitate some of those Continental systems such as the Swedish system, which are stricter in the public interest, in dealing with drunken and negligent motorists?

Mr. Stuart: The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be concentrating on the countries to the east or north-east of


Scotland for which I have no responsibility. But I wish to stress the importance of road safety propaganda, which, I may mention, is eligible for a 50 per cent. grant, and I hope that local authorities will pay attention thereto.

Mr. Woodburn: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken notice of the discussions of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, where it was reported that many of these accidents involved drivers who had driven for excessively long hours and beyond those permitted by law; and that those drivers are described by their fellow drivers as "sleepers", who drive all over the road to the danger of other road users? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take steps to check that kind of driving?

Mr. Stuart: I gather that in such cases it is the normal practice of the police to make inquiries into the hours of driving when investigating accidents involving transport vehicles.

Mr. John MacLeod: Now that these roads are controlled by the Secretary of State for Scotland, will my right hon. Friend see that the mad policy of having narrow trunk roads with passing places in the Highlands of Scotland is stopped forthwith?

Mr. Stuart: I am aware of the feelings of my hon. Friend on this subject but, as I have said before, he must bear in mind that in the rebuilding of these roads we must pay attention to the weight of traffic using them.

Mr. MacLeod: But what about the development of the area? Certainly, that is equally important.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Dugdale: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to raise a point of order with you of which I have given you previous notice. Last week I put down the following Question: "To ask the Prime Minister"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already told the right hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion that if he is trying to raise a point of order on a Question which has been disallowed, it is quite out of order to attempt to read the Question.

Mr. Dugdale: Last week I put down a Question to the Prime Minister, and I have been informed that the Question has been disallowed on the ground that the Prime Minister has refused to answer it. This seems to me, if I may respectfully say so, a quite unusual degree of protection for the Prime Minister. I should like to know whether in fact this is a new Ruling, and whether it applies only to the Prime Minister or to other Ministers as well?

Mr. Speaker: It is not my Ruling; it is the rule of the House. There have been many precedents for it. The real reason for it is that a Question which has already been fully answered in the course of the Session cannot be asked again. Included in the category of Questions which already have been answered are those Questions to which the Prime Minister has refused to give an answer.
When—as clearly he has here—a Minister has refused to add anything to the statements which have been made—there is no harm in saying that they were about Commander Crabb—and given an absolute refusal to answer any more questions on the subject, I feel that the old rule was rightly applied in the case of the Question of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dugdale: With great respect, my Question refers to matters that have occurred since the original events about which the Prime Minister spoke, and I think in that case something quite different arises which might rightly be asked.

Mr. Speaker: I did not take that view of the right hon. Gentleman's Question. It was clearly covered by the refusal of the Prime Minister to add anything to the statement which he has made on this matter. The House will see the wisdom of that rule. It is clearly a waste of time to put down Questions on the Order Paper which will elicit only a repetition of a previous refusal to answer. There are other hon. Members very anxious to ask Questions on a variety of topics, and it is my duty to apply the rule of the House in this matter.

Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order. Since a questioner may have new information and the Ruling is that a Question still cannot be put down, is


there anything to prevent an hon. Member balloting for the Adjournment in order to raise the matter in that way? Or is a Minister who may be concerned freed from the obligation to answer a question raised on the Adjournment in the same way as he is regarding a Question on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: In any case of this kind a Minister is at liberty, if he so chooses—and he is the judge—to refuse to give any information on the matter. That is the course which has been adopted here, and that is what I had in mind when dealing with the Question of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dugdale: With respect, and further to that point of order. When the original Question was asked, the Prime Minister refused to give further information. In spite of that, you, Mr. Speaker, did allow a debate to take place, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's previous refusal. Why does not the same set of circumstances apply today?

Mr. Speaker: I did not allow a debate on the matter. What happened was that the Opposition, in the exercise of their undoubted rights and under our Parliamentary constitution, raised the matter in Committee of Supply as a question of Supply. That has nothing to do with me. As I have frequently told the House, there are many things which may be raised and questions which may be asked in debate which, at the same time, are not admissible as Parliamentary Questions on the Order Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for Two hours after Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE PROVISIONS) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(POWER OF SANITARY AUTHORITY TO SECURE MAINTENANCE AND CLEANLINESS OF SANITARY CONVENIENCES.)

(1) If it appears to a sanitary authority that a sanitary convenience provided for the use of workers employed in agriculture on an agricultural unit within their district (being a convenience provided on the unit or provided in pursuance of regulations under section four of this Act elsewhere) is not being properly maintained or is not being kept clean, they shall, by notice to the occupier of the unit (or, where the convenience is provided in pursuance of such regulations as aforesaid to the person who provided it) require him, as the case may be, to take, within such time as may be specified in the notice, such steps for the purpose of securing the proper maintenance of the convenience as may be so specified or to cleanse the convenience forthwith.
(2) A person who fails to comply with the requirements of a notice under this section shall be guilty of an offence;

Provided that, in any proceedings under this subsection for an offence consisting in a failure to comply with the requirements of a notice requiring the taking of steps for the purpose of securing the proper maintenance of a convenience, it shall be open to the defendant to question the reasonableness of the requirements of the notice.—[Mr. Amory.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.36 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. D. Heathcoat Amory): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The object of this Clause is to ensure that appropriate sanitary conveniences are not only provided on farms, but maintained and kept clean. Its provisions will apply to sanitary conveniences provided on the farm by the occupier or landowner and also to those provided under Clause 4 by contractors. In our earlier discussions on the Bill there was general agreement that provisions of this kind were required.
The Clause will empower sanitary authorities to issue notices to fulfil the object I have mentioned. There will be separate provisions made later for Scotland, where the responsibilities of local authorities in this matter are wider. A consequential Amendment will be


required to Clause 10, and we shall come to that later. The wording of this proposed new Clause may appear to be formidable, but I am assured that, for technical reasons, this is the smallest number of words with which the object could be met. I am glad that we have found means of complying with what I recognise was the general wish of the Committee.

Mr. R. Moss: When this matter was discussed during the Committee stage, the Parliamentary Secretary said that sanitary facilities, when they were provided, must be kept clean. I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for keeping that promise. Obviously, it is of the greatest importance that sanitary conveniences should be kept clean lest they deteriorate and become a nuisance to health and well-being.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(POWER TO EXCLUDE OPERATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE FACTORIES ACTS, 1937 AND 1948.)

(1) Provision may be made by order for directing that such of the provisions of the Factories Acts, 1937 and 1948, as may be specified in the order shall not apply, or shall not apply to such extent as may be so specified, to—

(a) any premises occupied for agricultural purposes;
(b) any premises whereon there is carried on work in which are employed persons of a class to which this Act extends by virtue of an order under section seventeen thereof.

(2) An order under this section may be either one relating to premises in any part of Great Britain and made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Secretary of State and the Minister of Labour and National Service jointly, or one relating to premises in England and Wales only and made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister of Labour and National Service jointly or one relating to premises in Scotland only and made by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Labour and National Service jointly.
(3) An order under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order there-under made by the authority who made the original order.
(4) The powers conferred by this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no order shall be made under this section unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.—[Mr. Amory.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Amory: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The object of the proposed new Clause is to prevent overlapping or conflict with the various Factories Acts. Unless we have some provision of this kind, an employer in agriculture might find hint-self subject to two different sets of regulations. We might find that, as it were, we have got the wires crossed. It is not possible to provide an absolutely clear line of demarcation in the Bill, although that would be the simplest plan.
Let me give one or two examples of the borderline cases we have in mind; portable saws, grass drying and grinding machinery, and poultry - plucking machines of the kind normally met with in a factory. I have conferred with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour about this matter and we both agree that this will he the simplest way of ensuring that we do not get confused and at cross-purposes, and that the matter is clear and well-defined.
The House will know that we are providing that an Order made under this proposed new Clause will be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure. I think that that is right.

Mr. Frederick Willey: We fully accept the purposes of the proposed new Clause, but I would like the right hon. Gentleman to give the House an assurance that the position of no worker will be worsened as the result of it. We appreciate that the House will have an opportunity to discuss any Order under the affirmative Resolution procedure, which is an advantage for those who are vigilant, but, at the same time, it would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman would give that assurance.

Mr. Amory: I certainly hope that no worker will be worse off under the provisions of the proposed new Clause. We shall be designing regulations that are appropriate to agriculture, and it is difficult to make an exact comparison between the position of a worker under those regulations and that of a worker under the relevant regulations of the Factories Acts. Our object will be to see that, as far as is humanly practicable, the worker will not be worse off. If it be thought in any case that he is going to be worse off, I hope hon. Members will raise that aspect of the matter when we come to the affirmative Resolution concerned.

Mr. E. G. Gooch: I am sure that the Minister appreciates the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) about the position of the worker. If his position will be better by applying the regulations as they now stand, that will be best. I should have thought the Minister would be in a position to give an assurance of that kind.

Mr. Amory: I entirely agree, subject to the qualification about what is practicable in agriculture. It might be held in a particular case that the worker would be better off in theory under the Factories Acts, but it might be impossible to apply the Factories Acts in the circumstances. Subject to that kind of thing, it is our intention to see that the worker is no worse off under the new Clause.

Mr. J. T. Price: Before the Minister leaves the point, may I ask him about the status of certain premises often found in woodlands where a circular saw is set up in a temporary hutment or other building of a temporary character, in order to cut wood and produce timber? There has always been great doubt whether those premises were covered by the Factories Acts. I am still not quite clear whether the Bill will improve the status of a workman injured in such an operation as using a circular saw in woodlands, as compared with his position under the Factories Acts.

Mr. Amory: I can only answer that a worker in those circumstances will be fully covered under the Bill. How he will be covered will depend upon the precise regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure. We must wait until we see what the regulations are, but, broadly speaking, those workers will be completely covered by the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

3.45 p.m.

New Clause.— (FORM AND MODE OF SERVICE OF NOTICES.)

A notice under this Act must be in writing and may be served on the person to whom it is to be given either by delivering it to him or by sending it by post addressed to him at his usual or last known place of abode.—[Mr. Amory.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Amory: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause should have been included in the Bill, but through an oversight it was omitted. It provides for what I may describe as the usual procedure as to the service of notices.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1.—(REGULATIONS FOR SECURING SAFETY AND HEALTH OF EMPLOYEES.)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, after "made", to insert:
having regard to the circumstances of agriculture.
The object of this Amendment is to meet legal difficulties which may arise in applying future regulations made under the Bill. I hope the Bill will make it clear that Ministers, in making regulations and judges in interpreting them, are expected by Parliament to keep in mind the circumstances of agriculture, so that whenever some special consideration is necessary owing to the fundamental differences between agriculture and other industries, that consideration will be duly given.
There seems to be no express recognition of that fact in the Bill. Yet all our discussions upon agricultural safety, whether on the Gowers Report or on Second Reading and in Committee, have emphasised that there are great differences, especial and unique, about agriculture which make it impossible to fit upon agriculture the whole of factory legislation. Indeed, the admitted difficulty of legislating in detail for agriculture has given the Bill its structure, making it an enabling Bill, with regulations to be made by the Minister covering practically every agricultural operation.
When it comes to drafting the Bill—and presumably the regulations under it —there is a natural and almost unavoidable tendency to borrow legal words and phrases from the Factories Acts. For example, Clause 1 gives the Minister very wide powers to make regulations, such as to provide
safe places to work in and safe means of access thereto.
The limit of his regulations, as the Minister has just mentioned, is that they must be "reasonably practicable".
One consequence of adopting the well-tried phrases of the Factories Act is that Parliament is presumed to intend that they shall bear the meaning already given to them in the courts. Thus, such words bring in their train a whole body of judicial interpretation and case law which have grown up under the Factories Acts against the background of other industries. Much of this, I believe, is considered not to be completely clear and satisfactory in relation to factory conditions. I think it might be even less clear and satisfactory if applied directly and without any qualification to agriculture.
As I understand, in any case there arises, first, a question of law as to what the duty of anyone is, be he employer, employee, or some other person. After that, it is a question of fact as to whether the duty has been carried out or not. So far as the wording to be used in subsequent regulations corresponds with that already in the Factories Acts, it seems that previous decisions on questions of law arrived at in factory cases, even if the facts themselves can be distinguished, will tend to be binding upon agriculture.
In discussion of this Clause upstairs I attempted to describe some of the difficulties which might follow if, for example, existing decisions on safety of access—arrived at under the artificial conditions of industrial employment concentrated in factory precincts—were applied strictly to the sparse but wide-ranging movement of farm workers making their way from field to field all over the farm in the natural conditions of the open air. That could produce rather anomalous results and impose a heavy burden on agricultural production without—this is the point—conferring any corresponding or sufficient benefit upon persons engaged in agriculture.
Hence, I believe that when we get down to bedrock and analyse some aspects of agriculture we may find that some of the duties of the employer or the employee perhaps ought not—or, indeed, cannot—be quite the same as under the Factories Acts. That may arise especially in regard to the new field of statutory liability which this Bill will bring in.
If that is so, it seems essential that there should be sufficient flexibility in applying the law to enable any such differences in agriculture to be taken into

account. Even if I am mistaken, and examination should show that there is no need for any distinction, the fact that due regard has been deliberately taken of circumstances of agriculture will have made no difference to the final result except to reinforce it. That the difficulty, of possible overlapping and confusion, is real has been indicated sufficiently by the new Clause which has just been accepted giving power to exclude the operation of Factories Acts provisions where those provisions may overlap with regulations to be made under this Bill.
That seems to strengthen rather than to answer my argument because it implies that the regulations are likely to be analogous to the provisions of the Factories Acts. Indeed, it would be odd if they were not so. I want to emphasise that it is most desirable that many of the provisions of the Factories Acts and standards of safety should be adopted wherever appropriate in agriculture especially, of course, in relation to dangerous machinery.
I should like to see them adopted for their own merits, because we want them and have selected them, and not to find that we have to adopt some of them willy-nilly, as it were, by the operation of law. If they are adopted, I would hope that they would be applied, as this Amendment indicates,
having regard to the circumstances of agriculture.
That is to say, that judges shall not be bound too rigidly by what might have been decided in the context of urban industrial conditions, but shall be free to consider agriculture as a distinct industry, sui generis, severable from the rest. In that way we may be able to concentrate on the real and urgent dangers and build up a body of regulations and case law of our own, which will provide effective protection and command the attention and respect of everyone engaged in agriculture.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: I beg to second the Amendment.
We are entering a new field in legislating for agriculture and trying to adapt the procedure of the Factories Acts to agriculture. In support of the Amendment, I would stress that the Gowers


Committee, in paragraph 133 of its Report, said that agriculture was
an industry fundamentally unsuited to control by a statute of the character of the Factories Act.
Any of us who knows the wide diversity of farming, from the croft in the north of Scotland to the large flat, rich, Lincolnshire farm, knows that it would be difficult to produce regulations which are to be fair and, at the same time, practical.
It is with that diversity that some of us are slightly worried about the entering of this new field. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) said, those who draft the regulations will have in mind Factories Acts regulations. If they follow those regulations too closely they will find themselves in practical difficulties simply because of the diversity of farming.
I hope that we shall keep in the forefront the fact that this is an agriculture Bill, as this Amendment seeks to do in practice by seeking to amend Clause 1. The fact that it is an agriculture Bill should be in the minds of everyone, not only judges, but Ministers and those who have to draft the regulations. This Bill is not, in fact, legislation; the real legislation will come from the regulations. It is to get those regulations right that we are pressing this Amendment in the hope that it will be acceptable to the Government.

Mr. Sidney Dye: I listened with interest to the mover and seconder of the Amendment, which, it appears to me, is quite unimportant and innocuous, or is very dangerous. It can be very dangerous if the whole of the regulations which arise from this Measure have regard to this Amendment. The important words of the Clause are:
Provision may be made by regulations under this section for protecting workers employed in agriculture against risks of bodily injury or injury to health.
Any qualification of those words must weaken the application of the Bill to protecting men and women engaged in agriculture. Either the persons engaged in agriculture are of the utmost importance or agriculture itself is the dominating factor, in which case the men must be subjected to dangers against which they cannot be protected by the regulations.
That seems to be the very dangerous implication of this Amendment. It seems to be the same kind of limiting factor as was placed on the agricultural wages boards in the early days, when the boards were limited to fixing wages according to conditions in agriculture—not according to the needs of the men employed or in comparison with people in other industries, but according to the circumstances in agriculture; and the same words are employed here.
4.0 p.m.
Therefore, I think it would be a mistake to include them. I feel sure that they would be regarded by the men engaged in agriculture as a limiting factor, and I also feel sure that most farmers would never want them. In these days, they are prepared to see that the health and wellbeing of the men must be the first consideration. We want to protect them in the cases where there are dangers arising out of modern machinery and conditions, whether it be the application of the various chemicals of one kind or another that are used in agriculture, or anything else. I feel sure that we must put the interests of the men first, and that agriculture will not suffer.

Mr. Gooch: When I first read the Amendment on the Notice Paper, I could not make up my mind what was the real objective of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill). One conclusion which I reached was that, if agriculture once again got into the doldrums, the opportunity would be taken to suspend the operation of the Bill when it had become an Act of Parliament. I am not so sure now that I was very far off the mark.
I want to say to my Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Norfolk, South, that I do not think he is expressing today the feelings of the majority of his constituents who will be affected by the Bill. After all, the Bill is the very minimum that is given, and we are grateful for it. I suggest that the Minister should resist the Amendment and leave the Clause as it is. I am certain that the effect of an Amendment of this description would be to make the Bill fail in many respects. I therefore suggest to my Member of Parliament that he might withdraw the Amendment and allow the Clause to stand.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I have no difficulty in accepting the spirit in which the Amendment has been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan). The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) suggested to the House that the Amendment was either innocuous or very dangerous. I think the answer is that it is innocuous and intended simply to be explanatory.
I do not think it will surprise my hon. Friends if I repeat the arguments which I put to them in Committee, when we discussed a similar point on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." My right hon. Friend and I have given careful consideration to this Amendment and whether it might help the operation of the Bill, but we feel that, on balance, these words are not necessary. Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 1 contain not only the implications but actual provisions which include the kind of safeguards that are wanted.
The object, of course, is that the regulations shall have regard to the practical conditions in which agricultural work is being carried out, and that is why the Bill is drafted statutorily requiring my right hon. Friend to have consultations with all the various interested parties. In practice, it will undoubtedly be to the regulations that the courts will look in considering what the intention of Parliament was. I think that, in this connection, when one reads the Bill as drafted, one sees in Clause (1) that the regulations shall be such as
to meet the necessity of the case as far as is reasonably practicable.
The Ministers are bound to take into consultation all those who are interested, and, in these circumstances, I think that all the safeguards that can be made against the making of impracticable regulations have already been provided.
Finally, the regulations must be brought to the House, and, as the House may have noticed, it is our intention to move later an Amendment which will make this part of the Bill subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure. This ensures that the House will have a very full opportunity to see any regulations

that are to be proposed under Clause 1, which certainly could go very far indeed. I think I can assure my hon. Friend, and also my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus, that what they fear here has really been safeguarded, as far as it is humanly possible to do so. Certainly, we wish to ensure that the regulations shall have regard to the practical conditions of agriculture and the problems of the case.

Mr. J. T. Price: With great respect, I am trying to follow the very temperate and balanced argument which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is putting forward, but surely the purpose of this legislation is not only to provide greater physical protection and safety for the men working in agriculture, but also to give them for the first time equal rights before the law in cases of common law liability arising where men are injured.
I put it to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in all seriousness that we are as much concerned about the man who is injured. Let me quote again the case of the circular saw. A worker on a farm is injured when operating a circular saw which is not properly fenced; we want to ensure that that worker is not in a less favourable position than a man working in a factory covered by the Factories Acts. It is this second sanction, namely, giving the worker legal rights under common law liability, which we consider as important as the question of physical safety in the industry itself.

Mr. Nugent: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but the primary purpose of this Clause is the provision of safety measures and the making of regulations to that end. It is, of course, the intention of my right hon. Friend and myself to see that these regulations shall go as far as it is practicably possible for them to go to give the worker in the farming world all the protection we can, and to go as far as we can to give the protection which is given to factory workers by the Factories Acts. We all know that conditions are very different, and we have to take great care to see that the regulations that are made under this Bill are practicable. I fully sympathise with the anxieties of my hon. Friends, but I hope that they will be satisfied with that assurance and will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I should like to assure my distinguished constituent and


friend the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) that the purpose of the Amendment was not a dangerous one. I merely hoped that it would avoid certain possible, but certainly not dangerous, legal anomalies which might follow. Having heard the reply of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 1, line I5, at the end, to insert:
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection regulations under this section shall provide—
(a) that every dangerous part of any machinery used in agriculture shall be securely fenced and maintained in that condition unless it is in such a position or of such construction as to be as safe to every person employed or working on or near such machinery as it would be if securely fenced or it appears to the appropriate Minister that it is unnecessary or impracticable so to fence such dangerous part; and
(b) that all ladders used in agriculture shall be soundly constructed and properly maintained.
I am sure that the whole House will join with me in expressing regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) is not able to be present this afternoon. I am sure we all appreciate that he has done as much as anyone for this great industry and those who work in it. I personally know that he attended our proceedings in the Standing Committee under considerable physical discomfort and pain. I am sure that everyone will join with me in hoping that my right hon. Friend will soon be back again with us.
This Amendment is one of considerable importance, but I shall move it more or less formally in order to allow the Minister to make a statement on the matter. By the Amendment, which is similar to one which we moved in Standing Committee, we are endeavouring to place fixed machinery and ladders in a special category, and to ensure that statutory provisions shall apply, apart from such regulations as may be made.
The Parliamentary Secretary assured the Committee that he would meet us on the question of fixed machinery by putting down an Amendment at this stage and that he would see whether he could take a similar course about ladders. I should like to assure my right hon. and

hon. Friends that I am satisfied that the Minister has used his best endeavours to honour that undertaking and has tried hard to meet us, but for technical reasons has failed. He has failed largely because of the state of the agricultural machinery and the continued failure to recognise the necessity for safety provisions.
In considering such an Amendment as this, we have to recognise the present position and the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties and the fact that it would not be helpful, if indeed it were possible, to introduce into the Bill a provision such as that which we suggested in Standing Committee.
For those reasons, I want to say at once that, having had an opportunity of discussing this matter with the Parliamentary Secretary and seeing the advice which has been given to him, I was myself convinced that we could not attain the purpose which we jointly share. In those circumstances, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will assure the House that at the earliest opportunity he will introduce regulations and that, between now and the further consideration of the Bill in another place, he will consult the trade unions affected.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Amory: I should like to assure the hon. Member for Sunderland. North (Mr. Willey) that I share his sorrow, and I am sure the sorrow of every hon. Member, that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) is unable to be with us today, and I should like to take this opportunity to say how grateful I was to the right hon. Member for the advice which he gave us, from his long experience, during the earlier stages of the Bill.
The Amendment would impose the duty of safeguarding, by regulation, the dangerous parts of all agricultural machinery. We had a discussion on this subject earlier during which we pointed out the practical difficulties of securing an objective with which we are all entirely in sympathy. As the hon. Member said, at that stage we gave an assurance that we would look very carefully and sympathetically at the possibility of doing something at least in the case of fixed machinery. I have known the most ghastly accidents occur from fixed


machinery. I must say that at that stage I thought it would not be very difficult to find some words which we could put into the Bill. In practice, we have tried hard to do so, but have failed to find a sensible provision which we could put into the Bill.
The first reason why we have not been able to provide in the Bill for safeguarding all dangerous parts, even of fixed machinery, is that even the Factories Acts ran into trouble on this precise point. In that case they got out of the trouble by providing that regulations could be made modifying the provisions in the Act, and I am sure hon. Members will agree that that is not a very sensible thing to put into a new Bill. Secondly, they got out of it by providing in certain cases for automatic guards. Automatic guards are fine, but it takes a time to devise them, and there are practically no automatic guards provided for agricultural machinery. Although, of course, we shall work on those lines, it will take time before we are able to provide for automatic guards.
4.15 p.m.
The second reason is that in this field, as in the others, consultation is absolutely necessary before we decide precisely what to do. In this case there is great difficulty in defining fixed machinery. That may seem strange, but we have gone into the matter carefully. There is a greater difficulty still in saying which parts of machinery are dangerous parts.
I frankly hoped that, even though we could not provide in the Bill itself for the safeguarding of dangerous parts specifically, we might put a provision in the Bill making it mandatory that regulations should be made to deal with fixed machinery. There, again, I was surprised to find that I could not discover a way of doing it sensibly.

Mr. J. T. Price: The right hon. Gentleman is putting forward a construction of the Factories Acts which I am sure many of my hon. Friends would not accept. It is all very well to say that the Minister was given powers to make regulations modifying the requirements of the Factories Acts but the right hon. Gentleman is overlooking the major consideration that in the Factories Acts the duty on the employers is absolute to fence and maintain in a secure condition the fences on all prime moving parts of machinery. The only exception is in the case of

licensed machinery attendants. I am puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman's references. I do not think he wishes to mislead any of us, but I do not think his argument is quite sound.

Mr. Amory: The hon. Member is an expert on this and what he says will carry great weight with me, but the advice which I have had is that, while the Factories Acts lay down that dangerous parts of machinery should be securely fenced. in practice if that were done it would mean that certain machines could not be used at all. If the principal moving parts were securely fenced it would not be possible to use the machine. For instance, if a saw were securely fenced one could not get the timber to the blade of the saw. They found a way out by saying that automatic guards would fulfil the obligation. In this case time will be required for us to see that such provisions as automatic guards are designed to deal with the dangerous parts of the machinery.
Perhaps I may come to the reason why we have failed to find a sensible way of including in the Bill a provision making it mandatory to make regulations of some kind. Our first obstacle, I was assured, was that there is a considerable difficulty in defining fixed machinery as against static machinery. Secondly, I was assured—this is perhaps a legal and technical difficulty—that it would be impossible, if we put in a simple provision of that kind, to determine at any given time whether the Minister had completely discharged his obligations.
Thirdly, I found to my surprise, when I looked into it, that the proportion of accidents which resulted from fixed machinery in agriculture as opposed to static machinery was very small indeed. I found that the proportion arising from static machinery was fairly considerable, but the question of definition here is extremely difficult.
I should like to repeat what I said at an earlier stage in the Bill—that we have every intention, after consultation, of making any provision covering fixed and static machinery which is found to be workable and practicable and which, in the light of the consultations, is generally supported. But I believe—and I think the hon. Member for Sunderland, North agrees with me. after the information which I gave him the other day—that the enabling power already in the Bill is


probably the most sensible and best way of dealing with these cases. I believe that to attempt to put in mandatory provision here would be more likely to hinder than to help the object we have in mind.
In reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North about the trade unions, I should like to give an assurance that between now and the time when the Bill is considered in another place we will have consultation with the trade unions on this point.

Mr. George Jeger: The Minister has given us an explanation of his views of paragraph (a) of the proposed new subsection but, perhaps by inadvertence, he has omitted to deal with paragraph (b) which provides:
that all ladders used in agriculture shall be soundly constructed and properly maintained.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to say a word or two about ladders, because it is well known that the majority of accidents which occur in the spring arc caused by the rotten rungs of ladders which have been lying idle during the winter and have been neglected. It should be obligatory that ladders should be properly maintained and should come under the inspection system which is envisaged in other parts of the Bill. I would invite the right hon. Gentleman to say a word or two on that subject.

Mr. Amory: I am sorry. I should, think, have referred specifically to that matter. I think that some regulations dealing with ladders would be appropriate. Ladders are quite a common cause of accidents; but, again, I think, it would perhaps be a mistake to single them out for inclusion in the mandatory powers of the Bill. I believe that exactly the same thing holds good here as with the first part of the Amendment. We shall want to consult the interests concerned to find the right kind of regulation. I really doubt whether it would be wise to single out ladders specifically, in view of the other difficulties to which I have referred, for mention under the mandatory heading. I can assure the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) and the House that in the consultations I shall take the initiative of suggesting that regulations should be devised to deal with faulty ladders, as regards both construction and maintenance.

Mr. Gooch: I have listened to the Minister's reasons for not proceeding further to deal with the dangerous parts of machines, but I am not at all convinced by his argument. Unsuccessful endeavour was made during the Committee stage to induce the Minister to accept an Amendment the effect of which would have been to place on the employer an absolute statutory duty to provide where it was practically possible to do so all dangerous parts of machines with a guard. The Parliamentary Secretary, while at that time unable to accept the Amendment or to put forward another one in its place, did propose to table an Amendment to deal at least with fixed machinery.
There is no doubt that the necessity of protecting farm workers, by suitable regulations, from the many dangers created by machinery and machines would be a matter for priority after this legislation begins to operate, but if, after all, the Minister found himself unable to include some more absolute provision in the Bill to deal with the dangerous parts of fixed machinery, I say quite definitely that it would be a very great disappointment to my friends, many of whom are members of the National Union of Agricultural Workers. That it might lead to inspectors being inundated with requests by farmers to advise them as to what is reasonable and practicable is understandable, but the proposal places farmers at no disadvantage as against occupiers of factories who had to face the same initial problems when the Factories Act of 1937 came into operation.
The Minister said that it is impossible to guard some parts of machines. Everyone will accept that it is impracticable to guard every dangerous part of farm machines. For instance, the cutting tool of a machine has to be exposed, but it is the protruding shaft, the spindles, the cogs and other moving parts which are unnecessarily and negligently left exposed to the danger of the operator of the machine which cause the serious accidents and fatalities on farms. It is surely not unreasonable, and presents no real difficulty in drafting, for an absolute obligation to be placed on the farmer, such as is placed on the factory occupier, to see that those dangers are eliminated or minimised as far as possible.
Where means of protection of machinery can reasonably be taken there is no considerable reason why the worker on the farm or in the forest should be afforded fewer statutory safeguards than are provided for the great bulk of industrial workers. If the Minister cannot see his way to meeting us on the Amendment it will be some consolation or satisfaction to us if we can be assured that he will keep those matters in mind and that we can anticipate suitable regulations of that nature as a matter of priority.

Mr. Amory: I do not dissent from one word of what the hon. Member for Norfolk. North (Mr. Gooch) has said. It is our clear objective, as far as we can, to see that the workers in agriculture have protection at least as good as their opposite numbers would have in other industries. I, too, am disappointed that we have not been able to find the right words to make a mandatory provision in the Bill itself, but I once more assure the House that I realise the importance of seeing that effective regulations are made to deal with whatever moving parts of machines—

Mr. Gooch: Early.

Mr. Amory: As early as possible—that whatever moving parts of machines can be protected will be protected. I would again say, however, in reference to the Factories Acts, that my advice is that it did, in fact, take many years gradually to evolve the right ways of dealing with the difficulties, and that even under the Factories Acts those concerned, with their long experience, had to give themselves a "let-out", as it were, by this regulation-making power to which I have referred whereby they could modify the original obligation which had been included in the Acts.
I assure the hon. Gentleman once again that when we come to consultation about these regulations we shall give a very high priority indeed to regulations dealing with fixed and static machinery. I myself rather feel that that, in one sense, would be the easiest thing to tackle. Certainly one can think of some things that clearly ought to be done about the simple kind of fixed and static machinery one sees in use on the farm. I have seen parts of those machines unfenced that I am certain could be fenced, so I have

little doubt whatever that regulations will in fact be made, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that, in the consultations, we will give a high priority to regulations under these headings.
I must be careful that I do not promise an equally high priority to everything. I have already made a promise about ladders. Ladders, I agree, should not be awfully difficult to deal with. There are a surprising number of cases of people having accidents by falling from ladders—including the Minister, who fell from one. I should be out of order, Mr. Speaker, if I went into that incident in any great detail but it was not unconnected with a ladder. For myself, I feel that in this sector it would be almost inexcusable if we did not find it possible to make appropriate regulations to deal with a good deal of the danger arising from fixed and static machinery.

Mr. Willey: In asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, may I repeat what I said in moving it; that we were for all practical purposes concerned at this stage with fixed machinery and ladders. I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger), but the view I took was that it would be invidious to specify only ladders. Secondly, my recollection of the technical advice that I received is that this would not be a simple matter to define within the Bill, and that for those reasons it would be better to make this the subject of regulation without defining it specifically and separately in the Bill itself.
4.30 p.m.
With regard to the fixed machinery, I think that the best we can do is to accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, and to assure him that if he does not take speedy action we shall exercise the greatest pressure upon him. We should accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that he will impose regulations, where at present regulations are unimposable; we should accept the circumstances as they are. Then, having made a beginning, it is up to us all to see that we extend the scope of the regulations as rapidly as we can.
In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I beg to move, in page 2, line 35. after "agriculture", to insert:
(h) requiring the employers of workers employed in agriculture to insure themselves against claims made by such workers or their dependants for damages arising out of a breach of any provision of this Act or of any regulation thereunder.
The object of this Bill is to avoid accidents, to safeguard health and to promote welfare. That object will be defeated if people take unnecessary risks and then seek to protect themselves against the consequences by insurance. The test of the Bill's success will be in the decrease in the number of accidents rather than in any increase in claims for damages. But there will remain in agriculture certain inescapable, unpredictable dangers, and some accidents are bound to happen. They may well give rise to claims for damages if the employer is liable.
The present position, apart from the Industrial Injuries Scheme, is that the employer is separately liable at civil law, broadly speaking, if he has been negligent in helping to cause an accident. The regulations to be made under the Bill will introduce, I believe for the first time in agriculture, the doctrine of statutory liability which will place a heavy burden upon, let us say, the unlucky employer.
I am not competent to discuss the implications of statutory liability in detail, but suffice it to say that an employer, if he is held to have committed a breach of the regulations, may find that he has to meet a claim, if the injury is fatal or serious, of several thousands of pounds, amounting perhaps to the value of the freehold, the live and dead stock and the working capital of a small farm.
Therefore, it is obvious that all farmers need to insure. That has been mentioned by several hon. Members on Second Reading, and I think it is true to say that most farmers do insure. It is difficult to ascertain exactly what the proportion is, but my information suggests that it is probably a least 80 per cent. Farmers generally take out an employer's liability insurance when they take out other insurance. It may be that if the Minister, as I hope he will, promulgates safety regulations in poster form, this will help to jog the farmers' memories and will draw their attention to the need to insure.
One hopes, too, that the companies will pursue a drive to cover all risks. But some farmers are perhaps ignorant or forgetful, and may fail to insure. That seems to me to be unfair to the worker who may be injured on a farm where there is no insurance cover. Also, it may be unfair to the farmer or to his family, because if a heavy claim has to be met and there is no insurance cover, the family may lose their home and livelihood in an extreme case. The farmer does not always realise that the members of his own family who work for him for payment can also be covered against injury.
In addition, it is unfair on the farmer's fellow farmers, because the cost of premiums, which should not amount to more than I per cent. of wages—that is to say, 20s. in £100 of wages—will be taken into account in the Annual Price Review and, therefore, any non-insurer would be avoiding a responsibility that he ought to incur.
One should mention the small contractor who may employ farm workers and who may not have very much capital behind him and yet may be the man who supplies the machinery and so forth. It seems to me desirable that he in particular should be covered by insurance. I do not like compulsion; I realise that the question of compulsory insurance has been considered and rejected by Royal Commissions. On the other hand, it seems to work satisfactorily in the case of road traffic, and I do not see how we could do without compulsory insurance in that case. I sometimes feel that conditions on the farm are more akin to those on the road than to conditions in such factories as I have visited.
I hope, therefore, that the insurance companies will canvass all farmers, publicising the great risks that they run, and that the power which I seek to give the Minister in this Amendment will never be used. But that is not to say that such a power should not be held in reserve in case of need. If experience were to show that a compulsory scheme of insurance were desirable, then the power would be available, and such a scheme could be worked out by consulting the interests concerned and would be subject to affirmative Resolution by Parliament according to the provisions of this Bill.
Even if the power should never be used, it would at least serve the valuable purpose of continually emphasising the need for full and proper insurance against the risk of accident.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) has fully explained the reason why this Amendment has been put on the Notice Paper. Like my hon. Friend, I do not like compulsion, but we have to accept compulsion in many walks of life, and in this case I think it is necessary. The great majority of farmers will insure against any liability which may arise under this Bill. We want to protect the employees against those few who do not insure and who may not be in a position to provide for any person who is injured.
Road traffic became so dangerous that it was necessary to protect the public against the careless driver who injured or killed people. Compulsory steps were taken to make sure that drivers insured against third party claims. In this case, we feel that it would be no hardship on the agricultural community if those few who otherwise would not insure were compelled to do so. If my right hon. Friend could bring into effect some means of protecting employees against the forgetful or careless employer, it would be all to the good of the agricultural community.

Mr. Dye: Although I would not disagree with the principle of compulsory insurance, I should have thought that all farmers do cover themselves against accidents to their workpeople; and, if we are to introduce the principle of compulsory insurance, I should hardly have thought that we should start by asking the employer to be covered where he himself has broken the regulations or the law, but that it should apply in all circumstances. I do not see why we should compel an employer to insure against such particular occurrences if we do not compel him to be covered against accidents which might occur to all his workers when performing their duties or going to or coming from those duties.
Therein lies the weakness of the Amendment. Here, in this particular circumstance, we are asking for compulsory insurance only where the employer

himself breaks the regulations by not having proper protection. I feel that the Amendment would hardly bear examination.

Mr. Nugent: This Amendment does, of course, raise a very important principle. As the House may remember, it was discussed at some length during consideration of the Mines and Quarries Bill. The question was then raised as to the desirability of compulsory insurance, and the Minister concerned undertook to look into it. Finally, he had to inform the House that he was unable to include such a provision in that Bill, which has now, of course, become an Act.
The question was subsequently examined further, in great detail, in the course of consultations between Ministry of Labour and the Trades Union Congress, the final outcome being that the Government announced that they felt it was undesirable to introduce legislation to give effect to the principle of compulsory insurance.
In any event, if anything were to be done, it would, I think, have to be done by separate legislation. Apart from the fact that it would apply, of course, to many other industries, it would be quite impossible to deal with it by a simple Amendment like this, tacked on to a Bill of this kind.
There is an immediate practical problem here, within the limits of this Bill, with which my hon. Friends the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) and the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) are attempting to deal. That is the problem of enforcement. It is no use making a regulation of this kind unless there is an adequate inspectorate or adequate machinery to ensure 100 per cent. enforcement. Immediately, one is brought up against the realities of the problem, that to make compulsory insurance effective in this kind of employment it would be necessary to have comprehensive legislation of its own.
The analogy of the Road Traffic Act is not a true analogy at all. There one has the convenience of the bottleneck of the application for a licence, when it is easy to check up to see whether each applicant has his third party insurance policy. In this case, some means would have to be found of checking up on each farmer.

Mr. J. T. Price: May I remind the Parliamenary Secretary of one other Statute which has some relevance here? While the Road Traffic Act may not be a perfect analogy, there is a similar provision in the Workmen's Compensation Acts. Before the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act of 1946, under the Workmen's Compensation Acts there was provision for compulsory insurance; it was not covered merely by the common law liability.

Mr. Nugent: I thank the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) for giving the House the benefit of his encyclopaedic knowledge on this subject. I think that my comment on the analogy of the Road Traffic Act is a completely fair one. The great practical problem here, apart from the principle, is enforcement. In view of the very full consideration which the Government have given to this problem of compulsory insurance, I feel there is not at the present time much prospect of moving from the position already reached.
I entirely agree with the practical point made by my hon. Friends, and we certainly shall do everything we can to encourage farmers to take out such policies of insurance. We shall certainly lose no opportunity for publicity towards that end. I was very glad to see that the farming Press did give a great deal of publicity earlier to the intentions of this Bill, particularly in this connection; I hope they will do so again, both in the interests of individual farmers and in the interests of farm workers. I am sure that that is the best way of doing it.
We shall certainly lose no opportunity of bringing home to farmers the wisdom of insuring in this way, not only, as the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) points out, on the narrow point, but on the general situation, in order to cover their liabilities and obligations towards their workers.
In the light of this explanation, I hope that my hon. Friends will be content to withdraw their Amendment, recognising that the general principle raised here, which is a very broad one, has recently had very full consideration, and that the best way of dealing with the problem is by publicity.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. G. Jeger: It should be noted that the suggestion proposed by this Amendment, moved and seconded from the other side of the House, is one which would arouse considerable consternation in the farming community. Many of us have been meeting farmers during the last few months. They are faced with new problems in agriculture which arise from the fact that they have been "set free". Now we find a proposal advanced from the other side of the House to put an obligation upon them, a legal obligation, which would be completely at variance with their "freedom".
During the Committee stage of the Bill, we had considerable discussion on various matters, and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) enlightened us considerably during those discussions with his views on agriculture. Many of us thought, when he was discussing farming, what a good lawyer he would make. Now he is discussing the law, we have been impressed by his qualities as an insurance agent. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) has put his finger on the point of this Amendment, that a farmer should be made, by law, to insure himself against the consequences of a breach of the law. That, I think, rules the whole matter entirely out of court.
It is interesting that this encouragement—whether legally imposed, or merely friendly encouragement such as the Minister suggests—should come now, when the question of agricultural accidents is looming very large in our thoughts, and when regulations are being imposed which might prevent such accidents or impose obligations upon farmers to fence machinery and make agriculture more safe. There have been many thousands of accidents every year since farming began, yet there has never been this consternation among farmers before, and no attempt to impose upon them an obligation to insure themselves against the results of such accidents.
However much the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk, South may feel that it is only breaches of the law against which the farmer need insure himself, it seems to me that what is important is the whole question of accidents which may occur as a result of neglect or owing to


the fact that farmers—many of them in the country, unfortunately—have hitherto found it unnecessary or unreasonable to impose upon themselves any regulations for the health and safety of farm workers.
I hope that the Minister will not accept the Amendment and impose this regulation upon the farmers, but I hope, too, that every sensible farmer, as he has been doing for a long time, will see that everything possible is done not merely to safeguard his workers but to insure himself against any inadvertent accident which may occur, so that he may do justice to the claims of the workers.

Major Legge-Bourke: I should like to make one observation, in the light of what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill). I quite see the force of the argument that it is extremely difficult to contemplate making this type of insurance compulsory where there is no bottleneck, as he described it, as a result of licences having to be applied for. There is, however, one particular field here which does, I think, permit of this, because there is a bottleneck for licences in the case of gang masters.
I know that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) will agree with me when I say that his union has been extremely concerned about the often all too lax labour conditions in gang masters' organisations. There are some parts of the country where gang labour is becoming more and more the main form of labour, and in my own constituency, in the fruit growing areas, we rely tremendously upon it. I do not say that the risks of injury from horticultural gang work are as great as they are in corn production.

Mr. Gooch: The men who work in those gangs do not use machines.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support, because I was going to point out that I am quite certain that, as the years go by, we shall see gang labour coming more and more into all the departments of agriculture. I believe that in Canada gangs are organised for milking purposes and go from farm to farm doing automatic milking. That may well happen here.
Every gang master has to have a licence. That is the point that I wish to make. Therefore, the argument of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary against the Amendment does not apply with so much force in the case of gang masters. I would say that in fact the scope is there, if he liked to use it in any particular instance. I think that generally speaking the introduction, as it were, of the middle man in the labour market allows of perhaps rather more carelessness so far as possible injury is concerned than is the case where the employer has his men year in and year out.
For that reason, I hope—I am not saying necessarily at this moment—that my hon. Friend will give further consideration to this matter, because I think that the conditions of work in gangs are not as good as the conditions in the majority of cases where a man is working for his employer year in and year out. I think that there is scope here whereby the gang master, applying for a licence, might very well at the same time have to show that he has taken proper care to insure himself against any liability arising out of the Bill.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: In view of the explanation given by my hon. Friend, I should like to say that I am grateful to him for his sympathetic treatment of the principles behind the Amendment. Nonetheless, he has convinced me that, in the words of the Factories Act, it is not "reasonably practicable" to include it in the Bill, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, to leave out "an inspector" and to insert "the appropriate Minister".
This Amendment gives effect to the undertaking we gave during the Committee stage to make an alteration so that the Minister issues certificates of exemption instead of the inspector. As we explained at the time, such applications for certificates of exemption would, of course, have come to the Ministry, and this will put in statutory form what would, in fact, have happened in practice.

Mr. Willey: I rise only to thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for meeting a point that we raised in Committee, and to say that we feel much happier


about the Bill now that the responsibility is placed upon the Minister and not upon the inspector.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, after "exempting", to insert "for such periods as may be specified therein and".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that this Amendment and the next go together.

Mr. Nugent: Yes, Sir. This and the next Amendment have the effect of enabling my right hon. Friend to fix a time limit when he allows a certificate of exemption. This was a further point raised on the Committee stage by hon. Members Opposite, and this Amendment gives effect to the undertaking which we then gave.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 44, leave out "specified in the certificates" and insert "so specified".—[Mr. Nugent.]

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, to leave out subsection (7) and to insert:
(7) The Threshing Machines Act, 1878, shall be repealed on such day as may be appointed for that purpose by order made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by statutory instrument, and the Chaff-Cutting Machines (Accidents) Act, 1897. shall be repealed—

(a) as respects England and Wales, on such day as may be appointed for that purpose by order made as aforesaid;
(b) as respects Scotland, on such day as may be appointed for that purpose by order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument.


This again gives effect to an undertaking given during the Committee stage in response to an Amendment moved by hon. and right hon. Members opposite. It will have the effect of repealing these Threshing Machine Acts by order and so avoid a possible hiatus between the repeal of the old legislation and the introduction of the new.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5.—(FIRST AID.)

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, in page 5, line 31, at the end to insert:
(2) Regulations may be made for requiring the provision, at such places on an agricultural unit on which workers are employed in agriculture as may be prescribed by the regulations, and either at all times or at such times as may

be so prescribed, of containers containing first-aid requisites and appliances of such descriptions and in such quantities as may be so prescribed, being containers complying with such requirements (if any) as may be so prescribed with respect to the form thereof and the marking thereof for the purpose of indicating the nature of the contents thereof, but nothing in any such regulation shall be construed as derogating from subsection (1) of this section.
(3) Regulations under this section may make different provision to meet different circumstances.
This Amendment implements an undertaking given during the Committee stage and will have the effect of making this Clause with regard to first aid requirements more flexible and at the same time retain the mandatory features of the Clause as drafted.
Hon. Members will see that it runs to some length in subsection (2), but the effect is simply to make it more flexible in regard to place, time, contents, form and marking of first aid provisions, while ensuring, by retaining the mandatory provisions in the earlier part of the Clause, that every holding shall have at least one first aid appliance on it.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Gooch: When providing under the Clause for the availability of first-aid facilities on farms, one of the main considerations is to ensure that these requisites and facilities shall be readily available wherever a workman happens to be engaged. This aspect was emphasised in Committee, when, although the Clause was all right as far as it went, it was hoped that the Minister would extend its provisions so that he would have power to make regulations to require first-aid boxes to be fixed to machines or vehicles operating at such a distance from the farm buildings that the normal first-aid requisites would not be readily at hand. I hoped very much that the Minister would have given a little more thought to this aspect with a view to ensuring that wherever an accident happened a first-aid box would be available.

Mr. Nugent: We felt that by the Amendment we had gone a long way towards meeting the general wish of hon. and right hon. Members in Committee. The Amendment contains the words:
at such places on an agricultural unit on which workers are employed in agriculture as may be prescribed by the regulations, and either at all times or at such times as may be so prescribed …


We have gone quite a distance in widening the scope of the original Clause, and we felt that we had made a reasonably flexible and generous provision to meet all necessities. I agree that it does not specifically include the fixing of first-aid appliances to machines, but I would hope that it has gone far enough to meet the practical news of the case.

Mr. Gooch: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows very well that in my part of the country some of the farms are very extensive, up to 5,000 and 10,000 acres in area. When men are working great distances from the farm, they will be miles away from the first-aid box. Will the hon. Gentleman look at this matter again and see whether it is not possible to arrange that the first-aid box should be fixed to the machines which are sent out to work?

Mr. G. Jeger: This matter was raised in extenso in Committee, and I was under the impression that the Minister promised to reconsider it before bringing it back to us in the House. I am glad that he has made what he calls a flexible contribution, and certainly we welcome it. The word "flexibility" was used greatly during our discussions in Committee. The Minister has not, however. dealt with the very important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch), which concerned us a great deal during our Committee discussions. I hope he has not neglected to consider the matter and that he will have a word to say about it before we allow the Amendment to go through.
A further suggestion was made in Committee concerning the training of people in the use of first-aid appliances. Nothing complicated or elaborate would be necessary. We all paid tribute to the classes in villages and elsewhere held by the St. John Ambulance Brigade. It was hoped that the Brigade would be called in in this connection and that assistance on its side would be given towards training small units in agricultural communities in elementary first-aid.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee that, whilst the Government would not make regulations to cover the matter, they certainly intended to cover it by other means. I was rather hoping that the hon. Gentleman would say a word at this stage so that we would

know that he had considered the matter and had something definite in mind as to the form that training or the approach to the St. John Ambulance Brigade would take.

Mr. Nugent: In reply to the first point raised by the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger), we felt we had substantially met the problem of the large farm which would probably need more than one first-aid box in a central position. The Amendment makes it possible for my right hon. Friend to make regulations which would require the fixing of boxes elsewhere according to the size of a farm and the general circumstances. This would in practice go a long way to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) and by the hon. Member for Goole.
On the second point, our intention was to deal with the matter rather by way of advisory leaflets to farmers and such other publicity of that kind as we find will be effective, believing, as we do, that in this rather difficult matter, and dealing with farms of such varying size, it would not be suitable to deal with them by regulation. We certainly intend to do all that we can to encourage and advise farmers as to how they might make themselves acquainted at least with the first principles of first-aid in order to make these provisions effective.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 32, after third "of", insert "subsection (1) of".
In line 34, at end insert:
and a person who contravenes any provision of regulations under subsection (2) of this section shall be guilty of an offence"—[Mr. Nugent.]

Clause 10.—(INSPECTIONS BY SANITARY AUTHORITY.)

Amendment made: In page 8, line 35, after "determining", insert "(a)".—[Mr. Nugent.]

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, in page 8, line 39, at the end, to insert:
"or
(b) whether, and if so, in what manner the power conferred by section (Power of sanitary authority to secure maintenance and cleanliness of sanitary conveniences) of this Act is to be exercised as respects a sanitary convenience on that land, or whether there has been a failure to comply, as respects a sanitary convenience on that land, with the requirements of a notice under that section:


This Amendment is consequential, to give the sanitary authority the necessary powers in connection with the maintenance of cleanliness of sanitary conveniences.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16.—(PROVISIONS AS TO EXERCISE OF REGULATION-MAKING POWERS.)

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, in page 10, line 17, to leave out from "instrument" to the end of line 19.

Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn: Would it be possible and convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to discuss at the same time the Amendment in my name, in page 10, line 17, leave out from second "shall" to end of line 19 and insert:
not be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament
and the next Amendment, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Minister, in page 10, line 19, at end insert:
(4) No regulations shall be made under section one of this Act unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations made under any provision of this Act (other than section one) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was proposing to call the hon. Member's Amendment.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can they be discussed together?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I imagine that that would be for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Nugent: If hon. Members are agreeable, I certainly welcome that course, which enables us to discuss the whole question of the affirmative Resolutions.
The effect of my right hon. Friend's Amendments would be to amend the Bill so that an affirmative Resolution would be required for all regulations made under Clause 1. This would mean that affirmative Resolutions would be required for all regulations affecting safety under Clause I and regulations under Clause 17, under which my right hon. Friend will have power to extend the operation of the Bill to persons outside agriculture.
There is sound logic in providing for affirmative Resolutions for those regulations and for the negative procedure in respect of regulations made under other Clauses concerning sanitary arrangements, the lifting of weights, first-aid and in connection with children riding on vehicles, all of which are important matters, but are more circumscribed and defined in the Bill than are the regulations to be made under Clause 1, in particular, and, to a lesser extent, although they are very important in themselves, those to be made under Clause 17. Clearly, the regulations to be made under Clause 1 will be in the nature of substantive legislation, and can go very far indeed. They can affect everything which is done on the farm. Indeed, they could stop any operation if my right hon. Friend were to judge that that was the right thing to do.
It is always difficult to decide what regulations should be made by affirmative Resolution and what should be subject to the negative procedure. Excellent arguments can be produced on either side, and all of us from time to time have produced them and argued them. However, I commend to the House this balance which we have tried here to strike, and which we regard as being right in principle. We recommend to the House the affirmative Resolution for regulations which amount to substantive legislation, and we reserve for the negative procedure the rather more circumscribed matters. I hope that the House will agree that this is a fair and sensible provision for these sets of regulations. In any event, the very important matters contained in them will come before the House and hon. Members will have an opportunity to see them and discuss them; but by this means we ensure that this new development into which we are moving with the safety regulations shall be subject to the extra safeguard of the affirmative procedure.

Mr. Pickthorn: On Second Reading I ventured to draw the House's attention to Clauses 16 and 17 and to suggest that the positive procedure would be more appropriate than the negative. I still think that was right, and I do not think I could wholly accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend that the arguments on this matter are always roughly fifty-fifty. If that were so, of course, one might toss for it. I do not really think that will


quite do. The truth is that the arguments are all in favour of the positive procedure, but the negative procedure is much more convenient to the Government—and that is true whichever party is in office.
However, my hon. Friends and I, and some hon. Members on the other side of the House, too, have, I think, got a good deal more than half what we earlier asked for in the positive procedure for what we may call the surgical as against the medical side of the Bill and what we may call the substantive as against the procedural side of the Bill. We have that, and I think that that is a good deal to have got.
I should have liked to have made an elaborate speech demonstrating especially the weaknesses of the arguments of the Minister upstairs, but I do not think it is necessary to do that at this stage. I dare say that by now he may have become aware of the weakness, for instance, of the precedent argument. We have most of what we asked for, and, unless there is somebody who feels very strongly about it, I am inclined to be thankful for that and to save the House's time.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 19, at end, insert:
(4) No regulations shall be made under section one of this Act unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations made under any provision of this Act (other than section one) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Mr. Nugent.]

Clause 21.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Amendments made; In page 11, line 29, after "Act ", insert" or regulations thereunder".

In line 31, after "Act ", insert "or regulations thereunder ".—[Mr. Nugent.]

22.—(APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND.)

5.15 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I beg to move, in page 14, line 9, at the end to insert:
(6) For section (Power of sanitary authority to secure maintenance and cleanliness of sanitary conveniences) there shall be substituted the following section—

" (1) Any sanitary convenience and any washing facilities available for the use of

workers employed on an agricultural unit in agriculture and any sanitary convenience provided in pursuance of regulations under section four of this Act shall be kept properly cleansed.
(2) In the event of a contravention of the provisions of this section in relation to a sanitary convenience provided in pursuance of regulations under the said section four, the employer by whom it was provided, and in any other case the occupier of the agricultural unit, shall be guilty of an offence ".


This proposed new subsection is to take the place of the new Clause relating to the maintenance of sanitary facilities in England and Wales—the new Clause which the House agreed a little while ago. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) in Committee moved an Amendment which included a provision to make it compulsory to maintain and to keep clean sanitary facilities, and I undertook to march in step with the English Minister in this matter. This new subsection goes a little farther than the English provision because it applies to washing facilities as well as to sanitary facilities, because in Scotland local authorities have to supervise both, and it would certainly be rather odd if they had to supervise the keeping clean of the one and not of the other.
In Scotland there is no doubt where the responsibility lies. Therefore, it does not need to be specified. By Section 5 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act the responsibility for maintenance is laid definitely on the occupier. The English Clause provides for notice to the person responsible requiring him to take the steps specified in the notice to maintain or clean a convenience. In Scotland the duty is laid on the occupier to keep the facilities clean. If he is in breach of that duty he is committing an offence and is, therefore, liable to prosecution without notice.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 13, at end insert:
(7) In section ten for paragraph (b) of subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
(b) whether there has been a failure to comply, as respects a sanitary convenience or any washing facilities on that land, with the requirements of section (Power of sanitary authority to secure maintenance and cleanliness of sanitary conveniences) of this Act ".—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]


Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Queen's Consent signified.]

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Gooch: Unfortunately, I was prevented from attending the House when the Second Reading took place, and I was also unable to attend the Committee on the Bill, for I was in another place, Westminster Hospital, where I was concerned for the health and welfare of a particular individual. However, I have had the opportunity since of reading in the OFFICIAL REPORT the speeches delivered on Second Reading and in the Committee, and I want to thank my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House for having moved what I regard as very useful Amendments.
The Bill is the culmination of years of representation on the part of the National Union of Agricultural Workers. Some protection for the men who work on the farms was needed when machinery was on a modest scale, but there has been a tremendous increase in mechanisation on the farms, and that makes protection and the Bill more necessary than ever. I know very well indeed that the Bill itself cannot prevent accidents from occurring, but it certainly can ensure that safeguards are provided and can give power to enforce safeguards. During the years in which I have been agitating for such provisions as these to be made, I have continually had to meet the objection that the Factories Acts cannot be applied to agriculture because we cannot run a farm like a factory. On the farms today men are called upon to handle machines without safety devices, and such circumstances would not be tolerated in any factory. All that the National Union of Agricultural Workers has asked for is set out in the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill which states:
Provide for securing the safety, health and welfare of persons employed in agriculture and certain other occupations and the avoidance of accidents to children arising out of the use, in connection with agriculture, of vehicles, machinery or implements; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
I believe that a real endeavour has been made to bring those general purposes into effect.
I hope that the purposes of the Bill will be achieved and that the regulations to be made for securing the safety and

health of the workers in agriculture will be such as to afford the kind of protection to which many of us have thought for long they are entitled. What effects automation will have on farming, I cannot say, but great advances have been made in agricultural science during the last few years and the scientists have shown us how to stimulate growth and increase production. But nature is in almost supreme control. I like fine weather, as do most other people, but was glad that it was raining when I left home this morning. Had there been no rain, many of our crops would have been in a poor way.
The farming community is up to all sorts of tricks today in an endeavour to increase production. We deceive the hens to get them to lay more eggs, but, whatever surprises automation and press-button farming have in store for us, I still say that the skilled farm worker will be required in, I hope, large numbers. It is those workers about whom we are very much concerned and who are entitled to the protection given by the Bill generally.
I join in extending thanks to the Minister for introducing the Bill. If there was any doubt about the necessity for such a Measure I think that doubt was dispelled when my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) introduced his Private Member's Bill. That Bill secured a Second Reading despite the suggestion by the Minister that it should not be given a Second Reading. I think that the introduction of this Bill is due not only to the influence of my hon. Friend the Member for Leek in introducing his Private Member's Bill, but to other influences which have been in evidence for some time past to get some Government to introduce such a Measure.
The Bill is a measure of justice—long overdue justice—to the men who work on the farms. It is many years since I for the first time was a member of a deputation to a Minister for the purpose of asking for safety regulations on farms. If my memory serves me right, it was a deputation to the Home Secretary of the day—Sir Samuel Hoare as he then was and now Lord Templewood, a distinguished constituent of mine. Of course, when Sir Samuel Hoare knew that I came from the same county as he did, he listened to all I had to say and I thought that I was getting somewhere; but all


we got was what we expected to get, nothing but sympathy.
I regard this as a very happy day. I sometimes disagree with the Minister, but I want to say in his presence that we are still very good friends and that I have a great personal admiration for him. My quarrels are not with the right hon. Gentleman, but with the policy of his Government. So far as my dislikes of that policy are concerned, they will continue until both the policy and the Government disappear. In piloting the Bill through the House the Minister has earned full marks, which I am very pleased to give him. I hope that the Government last long enough for the right hon. Gentleman to round off his good work by giving the agricultural worker not only protection on the farm, but also protection in his cottage home. I know I shall be told that that has nothing to do with the Bill, and I quite agree and will anticipate the objection, but if the right hon. Gentleman decided to give protection to farm workers in their homes it would indeed be a day of great rejoicing for the rural community.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Amory: Before the Bill is given its Third Reading, I should like to say one or two words of valediction. I will start by saying how glad we all are to have the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) with us today and to have had the chance of listening to him speaking of the agricultural industry of which he has had a very long experience. I am sure that we are all extremely pleased that he was sufficiently restored to health to join in the jubilee celebrations of the trade union of which he is president. With the possible exception of one or two sentences towards the end of his speech, I agree with almost everything he said.
The Second Reading debate made it perfectly clear, I think, that the aims and objects of the Bill were such as had the warm support of the whole House. It remained for us to study the proposals in detail and to try to introduce improvements which would have a wide measure of agreement. It was always my strong hope that when the Bill was introduced we should find a wide measure of agreement, because it seems to me that a matter of this kind depends for its effectiveness or otherwise on whether the recommendations have the broad support of public opinion both in the industry and outside.
I believe that as a result of our discussions the Bill has been improved in detail without losing the broad measure of agreement. That is due to the practical contributions made by hon. Members on both sides of the House during its various stages, and I wish to thank hon. Members who joined in our deliberations upstairs for the very reasonable, good-humoured and non-contentious spirit in which the discussions were held and for the constructive suggestions made. Those discussions were an example of how we succeeded in beating our swords into ploughshares; at any rate for the moment.
I was impressed with the appreciation shown by hon. Members of the practical differences that exist between agriculture and the general run of other industries. We are fortunate in having in this House a fund of agricultural knowledge which is something that any prudent Minister of Agriculture is bound to treat with profound respect and, I think, with gratitude. That knowledge revealed itself during our discussions in a realisation that our task was not simply to apply the Factories Acts procedure to agriculture, but to test what was desirable against what was practicable and sensible.
The alterations made in the Bill during our discussions have, I think, been sound rather than spectacular, and I will recapitulate only two or three of them. As now proposed, the safety regulations under Clause 1 and any orders extending the scope of the Bill under Clause 17 will be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure, as also, of course, will any orders made under the new Clause, which we debated today, for preventing overlapping with the Factories Acts.
That meets a wish expressed by the whole Committee upstairs. I am glad that we have found a way to meet it. Provision has also been made extending the power to prescribe first aid requirements, for the maintenance and cleansing of sanitary facilities, and for avoidance of overlapping the Factories Acts.
I am under no illusion that by passing the Bill we are automatically achieving our objectives. The Bill remains an enabling Measure. It opens the road to our objective but does not carry us to it, and it has been apparent at all stages of the Bill that hon. Members have realised that everything will depend in this case upon the regulations that are


made. Again, I should like to assure the House that I mean to set about this task in earnest and to ensure that the regulations that will be made, after consultation with all the interests concerned, as is provided in the Bill, shall be effective and sensible.
During our discussions we learned many interesting things. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss) and I both recalled that in days gone by we had fallen into serious trouble on farms, and the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) warmed my heart by telling me that a great deal of his energy was consumed in the task of defending the Minister of Agriculture from certain alleged attacks. I am glad to see the hon. Member looking so robust in health after the Recess. It is clear to me that he has not found it necessary, to spend any energy recently on that task.
I should like to pay a wholehearted tribute, which I am sure will be supported in all parts of the House, to the industry with which we are concerned. I am sure that this tribute is well deserved. I have had experience of a number of industries during my life, and I say without any fear of contradiction that I know of no industry where there is such a high sense of mutual responsibility between those working in it as there is in agriculture. I know of no other industry where relations between employer and employed are so close and so intimate, and I know of no other industry where the workers show a more conscientious attitude to their job. That is a testimony, with which I am sure the whole House will agree, to all concerned—employer, employed and the trade unions.
Pride in one's job, in my humble opinion, is an absolutely fundamental element to efficiency and also to happiness, and pride in the job is more widespread in agriculture than in any other industry I know of in the country. I have said before that I am convinced that we are fortunate in having the best farm-workers in the world, and I have had no reason to change that opinion during the time I have been Minister.
In these circumstances some people ask whether the provisions in this Bill are necessary. I am sure that they are. The number of accidents which have taken place in recent years should alone give us

grounds for no complacency. I suggest that we should look at the matter in this way—that if it is true, as I believe it is, that workers in agriculture are conscientious, adaptable and responsible to an exceptional degree, there is a special responsibility upon us to ensure that they have the advantage of the fullest protection that is practicable against risks to health and safety.
In providing such protection, we have endeavoured to keep a sense of perspective and to avoid imposing upon employers, who in agriculture show a full sense of responsibility to their workers, obligations which would be unnecessary or impracticable. I believe that in the Bill we have struck the right balance, but I am sure that the House will agree that legislation and regulations by themselves will not attain the objective which we have in view. The value of the Bill is that it stresses the importance that Parliament attaches to these things, that it sets standards which, if necessary, we shall not hesitate to enforce. and that it provides a foundation upon which, with good will and general agreement, still more can be accomplished by voluntary action, reinforced by training and common sense. I regard this as a useful and sensible Bill and I commend it to the House, confident that it will decide to give it an unopposed Third Reading.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Willey: In associating myself with the kind remarks the Minister has made about my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch), I would also congratulate my hon. Friend upon seeking the opportunity of speaking by way of preface to the right hon. Gentleman. I can only assume that the right hon. Gentleman was so amazed at being told of his "weakness upstairs" by his hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) that he delayed his intervention in our debate. I do not want to speak by way of recrimination. Recriminations are tolerable only when they lead to effective results. Therefore, I will say nothing about the prolonged period of gestation which the Bill has suffered.
I join with the right hon. Gentleman in expressing our appreciation of the importance of this Bill. It is important for two main reasons. First, it recognises human values in the agricultural


industry. It is true that this is an industry in which, because of the small units, there are good human, personal relationships. It is especially on that account that we should take this opportunity of ensuring that, as far as we the legislators are responsible, we shall afford within the industry a proper recognition of the dignity and value of those who work in it.
Secondly, I emphasise again that by means of the Bill we recognise the status of agriculture within our economy and ensure that, recognising the difficulties of the industry, we are legislating to provide that it will not be handicapped in comparison with other industries. This is a matter of considerable importance when we are calling upon the industry to do all it can to help us in our present economic difficulties.
As the Minister said, this is an enabling Bill and its success will depend upon the success which he enjoys in drafting the regulations which will follow upon the Bill becoming law. I should like, therefore, to say a few words about the matters which will be affected by these regulations. We are still not completely satisfied with the question of inspectors. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will keep this very important matter under constant review. I would concede at once that it is not an easy matter. I appreciate the difficulties of the Ministry of Labour with regard to factory inspectors. I hope that the Ministry of Agriculture may bring some assistance to the Ministry of Labour by its experience in operating the Bill.
We must take a broader view of the work of the factory inspector. At the same time, I do not think that we are altogether satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman said about inspectors. I hope that he will recognise that the good working and good relationships of the inspectorate with the industry are an essential part of the Bill.
I do not want to traverse the general points which we have discussed during our consideration of the Bill, but I should like to call attention to the substance of some of the matters which we on this side of the House would have discussed if some of our Amendments had been called. In other words, I wish to call the Minister's attention to the steps he can still take.

Without arguing the case for the default powers, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept a continuing responsibility to the local authorities and see that his Department calls the attention of the local authorities to their powers to enforce the necessary standards.
Turning to another matter, the right hon. Gentleman has power to prescribe excessive weights. Frankly, I was discouraged by the remarks of the Minister in Standing Committee but I hope he will recognise that some advance has been made. Perhaps I stigmatised unduly the milling industry, for it has made some advance. Certainly it is in advance of the Minister. However, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that he has a responsibility to ensure, either by regulation or by agreement, that the health of workers is not prejudiced by carrying excessive weights. By way of an aside, may I repeat that the efficiency of handling is invariably assisted by the regulatory provisions about heavy weights. Carrying them not only damages the health of workers unnecessarily, but it is not efficient so to handle goods.
Finally, again dealing with the matters we might have discussed, I hope the Minister will call the attention of local authorities to the experience of Norfolk in the employment of young persons. The experience of this county, which is one of the leading agricultural counties, could afford encouragement to other local authorities.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that in all these matters consultation and agreement are essential. I hope that this can be encouraged by the consultation and agreement which followed the introduction of the Food and Drugs Act. Indeed, I am sure we can be equally optimistic in this sphere about the results of consultation. I am convinced that, if the right hon. Gentleman consults both sides of industry, we shall have an appreciation of the problems and difficulties and a genuine desire to go as far as is practically possible in present circumstances to ensure the safety and health of workers.
May I express our optimism that we can properly anticipate effective regulations resulting from this Measure which will not disappoint the expectations of


my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), who introduced his Private Member's Bill or, for that matter, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Gentleman is in a unique position, having served on the Gowers Committee of Inquiry, to satisfy not only himself, but the aspirations of his Committee, that their recommendations are practical, sensible recommendations which can be implemented.
Recognising the earnestness of the Minister, and assuring him that if he shows any relaxation in being earnest we shall be exceptionally earnest, we look forward soon to being able to discuss the first of those regulations which will transform the provisions as to the health and safety of those who work in this industry.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Hurd: From the benches behind the Minister, I wish to support this Bill as it leaves the House. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the Minister for having persuaded the Cabinet that this was a right and proper Measure to bring forward at this time. I understand that there is strong pressure on the legislative programme, and so we have reason to be grateful to my right hon. Friend for getting this Bill well to the fore.
We also have cause to be grateful to Sir Ernest Gowers for the excellent preparatory work which he and his colleagues have done on so many occasions for this House. He gave us an excellent framework, which my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary played a part in shaping, on which we have been able to build.
We are able to proceed with good will because we have such a close partnership in the industry. It is heartening to find that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) speaks with the same voice on agricultural problems as do we who are at opposite poles in politics but see with the eyes of commonsense what needs to be done in this great industry. Indeed, the prospect of this Bill being a useful Measure will depend on the commonsense of those who will frame the regulations and upon the commonsense of the people engaged in the industry as they observe them.
It is true that many farms are very small and rarely come under the eye of an inspector. Therefore, it is all the more important that all three partners in the industry should be fully aware of their responsibilities under this Bill—indeed under all Acts—so that, whether the inspector comes along or not, the purpose of Parliament in bringing forward and endorsing this Measure will be carried out properly, as I am sure will be the case.
Regardless of party, we all join together when it is a matter of supporting a Measure which will further the well-being and health of those engaged in agriculture. Conservative Governments have a good record in this respect. We often list such achievements at General Elections. I can never remember them, but I know they are in the party literature, and it is a formidable record. Here is another Measure to be added to that long list, and it is one in which we can take pride. I am sure that this will be a useful Measure, because it has the support not only of the National Union of Agricultural Workers, but also of the National Farmers' Union and of the County Landowners Association. I do not say that every Clause in the Bill is framed in exactly the way which all three of those organisations would have thought to be ideal, but broadly there will be support for applying this Measure. and we send it on its way—I do anyway—with our best wishes.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Percy Wells: I also support the Third Reading of this Bill, although it does not go quite as far as many of us on this side of the House would wish. For instance, I am expressing the views of thousands of agricultural workers when I say how disappointed they will be that the Minister has not found it possible to write into the Bill something definite about the maximum weight of loaded sacks. For far longer than I care to remember agricultural workers have been agitating for this reform. Therefore, I can only hope that the Minister has not dismissed from his mind the appeal made to him in Standing Committee, but will implement it by means of regulation.
I doubt if there has ever been a reform which has been so generally accepted, so sympathetically looked upon by those directly concerned, which has been so


persistently pursued, but has been so long delayed, as this reform.
My experience has been similar to that of the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan). When I have discussed the matter with farmers, they have agreed that the 1 cwt. sack would be an advantage. That seems to be the general opinion among those who are directly concerned in agriculture.

Mr. Hurd: It is 1½ cwt.

Mr. Wells: Anyway, that is the general opinion among agricultural workers and the best type of farmer. Twenty-five years ago when we urged this reform we were told—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would point out to the hon. Member that it is not in order to discuss the regulations at this time.

Mr. Wells: I am referring to an Amendment which, unfortunately, was not called, and I realise that to that extent I am out of order. However, this is something which can be covered by the regulations made by the Minister. That being so. I should have imagined that I was in order, but, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you rule me out of order, I will bow to your Ruling.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There will be an opportunity for such discussion when the regulations come before the House.

Mr. Wells: All I want to say on that subject is that the reason that we are now given for not accepting the proposal, that there are 13 million 2 cwt. sacks in existence, is similar to the reason given 25 years ago, and, unfortunately, such sacks are still being manufactured.
The Minister showed some sympathy about this in Standing Committee, and I appeal to him to have regard, when making regulations, to the information which has been given to him about the number of injuries which occur yearly in agriculture as a result of lifting heavy weights. The figures supplied to us show that 10 per cent. of the accidents on our farms result from the lifting of heavy weights.

5.53 p.m.

Major Sir Roger Conant: In a few sentences, I should like to express a welcome to the Bill and congratulate my right hon. Friend. With

many other hon. Members, I dislike in principle the idea of giving Ministers wide powers to make regulations, but in circumstances such as exist in agriculture it is the only practicable method by which there can be given to the industry, through legislation, the safeguards which other industries have enjoyed for many years.
Some hon. Members have suggested, I think rightly, that the Bill is long overdue. When one considers the very rapid advance in mechanisation in agriculture, and the new chemicals which are used, very often with little knowledge about them, one thing that always amazes me is the comparatively small number of accidents which take place. I think this shows to a very considerable extent the adaptability of those engaged in agriculture.
I hope that my right hon. Friend, when consulting the industry about the regulations, will pay particular regard to the manufacturers of agriculture machinery, many of whom live in my constituency. It has always seemed to me that agricultural machinery is potentially much more dangerous in many respects, or many types of agricultural machinery are, than machinery in a factory. Not only is it doing its job of thrashing corn or cutting grass, but it is moving across the ground at a very rapid rate.
The most dangerous of all—it has now become an agricultural machine—is the circular saw. Most farms, small as well as large, have circular saws, and some of those which I have seen do not seem to have very effective safety devices. That is a matter which needs very urgent attention by way of regulations. I am inclined to feel that a circular saw might have its own first-aid box.
On the whole, I feel that agricultural machinery is fairly safe. Accidents are nearly always due to the misuse of machinery, rather than to structural defects, and in other cases they are due to carelessness and ignorance. Accidents resulting from falling off stacks, the misuse of hay forks or—from which I once suffered—using very sharp knives with very cold hands cannot be the subject of legislation. Education, training and propaganda count for even more in preventing accidents.
While mechanisation has been producing, I suppose, many more accidents,


nature has at any rate provided for the removal of one potential source of accident, when myxomatosis killed off the rabbits. It has always seemed to me that one of the most dangerous times of the year has been the last hour in cutting a field of corn, when the whole village turns out with every known lethal weapon, surrounding the field and getting nearer and nearer to the centre, and even the tractor driver often carries a gun balanced on the machine. Although I have often taken part in such parties, I have never seen an accident even to a dog. Perhaps many people will regret that such exciting events will not be possible any longer.
What is important now is to ascertain how we are to ensure that such regulations as are made under the Bill will really be carried out. I cannot feel that the appointment of large numbers of inspectors—I am glad that there will not be large numbers—will count anything like as much as securing the co-operation and sympathy of those on the farms who are concerned, the farmers and farm workers. I am sure that if, in making the regulations, my right hon. Friend bears that in mind, we shall find the Measure of real value in the long run in bringing down the accident rate on farms. I wish my right hon. Friend all success in making the regulations, and I hope the Bill will have a speedy passage into law.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I would join all other hon. Members in the House in congratulating the Minister upon getting the Bill to its last stages here. We hope it will have a speedy passage in another place. We are grateful to the Minister for granting us the affirmative procedure in dealing with the regulations to be made under the first Clause. We are all agreed that that is a great concession.
I hope that when the Minister comes to make regulations about weight lifting he will give careful consideration to the arguments that we put forward in Committee. I hope he will urge his colleague the Minister of Labour and National Service to ensure that he publishes his promised safety pamphlet on weight lifting by industrial workers within the time limit he set himself, which was the end of the year.
I should like to tell the Minister that yesterday I happened to be in Jersey, and I saw potatoes being packed and loaded. The predominant package was one of 72 lb.

Mr. Amory: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how many potatoes he saw on their way here? I should like to know that.

Mr. Hayman: I am afraid my memory is at fault, but I gather that the shipment is up to schedule, although there is likely to be some delay owing to the difficulty of getting French labour, of which the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt already aware.
I wish also to refer to the question of making regulations under Clause 6 relating to accidents to children. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that he was suffering from schizophrenia about such a regulation in that the present provision covers children up to the age of 13, whereas what some of us desired was that regulations should cover children up to the limit of compulsory school attendance. If the accident rate should show that there is some danger in accepting the terms of the Bill, I hope that the Minister will consider introducing an amending Bill. I congratulate him and hope that the Bill will soon reach the Statute Book.

Mr. Amory: The Bill gives me power to make regulations about operating particular types of machines by young persons over the age of thirteen. For instance, if the evidence that it was dangerous for a young person between thirteen and fifteen to drive a tractor became overwhelming, it would be possible to make regulations to cover that, but we would need to have the evidence.

Mr. Hayman: I thank the Minister for that assurance. It is now on the record, as is the speech of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Sir R. Conant) who drew attention to the dangers of agricultural machinery in certain circumstances.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Today, we say "Goodbye" to the Bill and await the regulations. The regulations will minimise the danger, but not of themselves avoid accidents. Accidents happen because danger exists and someone comes


into contact with it. Therefore the human element will remain all-important. When the Minister frames his regulations I hope that he will consider a very interesting report which has been published since the Committee stage of the Bill by the Institute of British Agricultural Engineers in which, in analysing ninety recent accidents selected at random from insurance companies, it was found that failure to take reasonable safety precautions caused 58 per cent. of the accidents; faults in design and lack of guards, 31 per cent.; unavoidable cases under normal circumstances, 9 per cent.; and unclassifiable, 2 per cent.
From that it is obvious that education and training can make the greatest immediate contribution. I hope that the Minister will use his powers under Clause 1 (3, h) for incidental, supplementary and consequential matters to stimulate his own Department, local education authorities, the unions within the industry, the manufacturers and all parties concerned to do all in their power to promulgate safety codes and provide facilities for instruction. If it is possible to make some up-to-date films to illustrate farm dangers, then so much the better, because nothing convinces so well as visible examples.
When the Minister devises regulations dealing with machinery, I hope that he will refer to this report and consult the machinery manufacturers and the British Standards Institution with regard to very important and practical recommendations to combat the dangers of mobile farm machinery. In the last analysis, the greatest protection will come from care based upon knowledge. When the Bill becomes law and the regulations are made, I hope that the Minister will quickly produce a popular manual setting out in simple language the basic provisions of the Act and the corresponding duties of employer and employee and add to it a clearly written and, if possible, illustrated guide to farm safety. There is immediate scope for reducing the number of accidents due merely to carelessness and ignorance and if the information is readily available and the regulations come forward quickly, then the Bill should get off to the very good start which it deserves.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Dye: I should like to join with my hon. Friends who have expressed their appreciation to the Minister and to the

Joint Parliamentary Secretary for piloting the Bill to its Third Reading. The Minister said that we have the best farm workers in the world. We have approximately 600,000 farm workers, but at the rate of decline of last year, when more than 30,000 left the land, it looks as though none will be left in twenty years.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) pointed out the Measures—he had forgotten the list which Conservative Governments had passed for the benefit of workers. It would be a very sad tale if, while these regulations for the benefit of farm workers were being provided, farm workers continued to leave the land at the present rate. The country would be the poorer for the loss not only of the men but of character and tradition. I hope that alongside the Bill will go something to ensure that we still have a large agricultural community and countryside worthy of the past.
The main reason for the Bill is obviously the greater rate of mechanisation in agriculture. Machines are made in factories and supplied for use on farms, so that clearly the key point is in the manufacture or design of new machines and the issuing of adequate safeguards plus careful instructions and directions for their use. The Minister said that he would have consultations in the near future with representatives of the trade unions. At least as important will be consultations with the machinery manufacturers about new machines and the obtaining of their advice and help in providing existing machines with adequate safeguards. After all, a home-made safeguard to an existing machine may be as dangerous as if the machine had no safeguards.
There will be a very big task, therefore, to see that existing machines, whether fixed or mobile, are guarded and that manufacturers and agricultural engineers are given guidance so that they can produce machines of the standards required by the Bill. Those seem to be very important steps, and they must follow the Bill and the regulations. If carefully drawn and properly distributed among farmworkers, the regulations should create accident-mindedness. If we can get that and the obvious commonsense attitude of avoiding risks in the use of machinery, plus machines, old and new, which are adequately safeguarded, the Bill can quickly reach its objectives.
I sometimes think that some of my hon. Friends, in talking about maximum weights to be lifted, are getting a little out of date. We need adequate appliances to lift heavy weights on farms. There is no reason why every load of corn should not be loaded by mechanical lifters. Far greater use should be made of mechanical power for lifting all weights, whether loads of manures coming in, or loads of corn leaving the farm, instead of the old-fashioned human muscle. If greater attention is given to that, the problem of maximum weights will probably quickly disappear.
Together with the regulations and the frame of mind of the workers there must also go the attitude of the employers towards safety devices. It is obvious that they, also, must adopt this new outlook towards the safety, health and welfare of the workers. I do not want to see the decline in agricultural workers continuing. For the future benefit of our country and the safeguarding of our food supplies more food needs to be produced, and it would be a good thing for our future and the long traditions of British agriculture if we could not merely keep the people we have upon the land at present, in better conditions of health, safety and general welfare, but add to their numbers in the next ten years instead of having a continuation of the decline which has occurred in the last five years.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. G. B. Drayson: I hope that the Bill will prove to be a useful and sensible Measure, as the Minister has said, although I am not able to agree wholly with the expressions of approval which have come from hon. Members on both sides of the House, because farmers in my constituency are not entirely satisfied with the Bill's provisions.
A powerful agricultural body—the Craven Tenant Farmers' Association—has written to the Minister and given him some of its views upon various Clauses. It says that it considers the time is inappropriate to introduce a Bill of this nature, and thinks that the Government have enough agricultural problems on their hands to occupy their time at present. Although at a number of meetings which I have had with farmers during the last few weeks they have appeared

to be relatively satisfied—certainly with the Price Review—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Order. The hon. Member cannot discuss that now.

Mr. Drayson: —nevertheless, they feel that the Bill could have been delayed until some of the more pressing problems had been dealt with.
This most enlightened and progressive body of farmers is doubtful about the estimated cost of the Measure; it thinks that it will be found to be rather more than is envisaged, and it also feels that the money could be better spent upon the farming community in some other direction. It particularly objects to the vicarious liability which the Bill imposes upon farmers, and says that cases will undoubtedly arise where a farmer will be guilty of an offence although he has taken every possible precaution—because, in his absence, a regulation has been broken. It thinks that the Bill should have contained a provision to exempt a farmer from liability unless he was present at the time, or expresses knowledge of the breach of the regulation. We shall watch the regulations with great care, in the hope that this point will be covered.
Further, the Association says that the farmers are tired of being harassed by inspectors and other officials, of whom they have had a surfeit during the past seven years. Farmers would agree that during the past six years, however, there has been a very considerable reduction in the number of inspectors, although they will read with interest that hon. Members opposite, during the course of this debate, have said that there are not enough inspectors, and that the Measure does not go far enough. We think that it goes quite far enough. I hope that the fears expressed by farmers in my constituency will be allayed when they see the regulations which the Minister brings forward when the Measure has reached the Statute Book.

6.14 p.m.

Sir Frank Medlicott: I am stimulated by the few words which have just been spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) to add a few sentences—before the Minister replies—in relation to the general attitude of farmers, at least in that


part of the country with which I am familiar. I do not profess, and would not attempt, to speak with the experience and authority of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) who, not only by what they have said during the course of this debate but by their many years of endeavour in relation to this subject, have shown their intense interest in the welfare of agricultural workers. I know that they will be especially glad to see this step forward.
I am sure that I can, however, say a word on behalf of the farmers in Norfolk and other parts of East Anglia. Broadly speaking, they will welcome the Bill because, although officials, forms and similar matters are irritating, they are of little importance compared with the lives and limbs of the workers in our countryside. I am confident that farmers would agree with me that this Bill, for which so many hon. Members on both sides of the House have worked for so many years, will, if intelligently applied, lead to an improvement in the conditions under which farm workers do their valuable and indispensable work.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: Perhaps I may add a final valedictory word before the Bill goes upon its way, and also thank the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for his kind reference to my membership of the parent Committee—the Gowers Committee. I suppose that it is an unusual experience to have the privilege of taking part in moving legislation through the House as well as having been upon the original Committee. The real tribute is to Sir Ernest Gowers and the other members of the Committee—although it is true that I was DeputyChairman for about six months, during the period when this question was before the Committee.
We had a most valuable Committee and were greatly helped by the evidence given upon a number of occasions by the T.U.C., the union of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch), the National Farmers' Union, and many other bodies. I believe that the report which was produced was a realistic one, and I can certainly confirm that the spirit in which the House has dealt with the Bill, and in which it is now being finally completed at this stage, is just the spirit in which we

tackled it—which was to try to achieve a right balance between the practical necessities of achieving a greater measure of safety and, where possible, health and welfare for farm workers, at the same time as not preventing the essential work of the farm from going on. That is not at all an easy thing to do and I would think that the way in which we have achieved it is a credit to the House and its great reputation as a place of entirely practical minds.
I believe that the apprehensions of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) are not justified. I think that the majority of farmers welcome this Measure and recognise that the way in which we have dealt with the matter has been practical and sensible, and that it is absolutely right, despite all the difficulties, urgencies and preoccupations of the time, to make better provision for the safety, health and welfare of workers wherever we can. What we have done here is to bring forward an enabling Measure which gives my right hon. Friend the necessary powers to proceed by regulations, after full consultation, in any way that it may be done, to improve these particular matters.
I am entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott) that farmers generally will welcome the Measure, and that it will set a general tone which will cause people to look the right way and consider where they can improve the general safety of these operations on the farm, which, by their nature, inevitably have a considerable element of danger. It is a question not only of machines, but also of livestock. A farm worker may have to deal with heavy animals, such as cows, weighing perhaps half a ton each, and such beasts may lurch, and tread or fall upon him and break a bone. Those dangers are there all the time.
Anything which we can do to cause farmers and farm workers to think in terms of safety wherever possible will be of great benefit to all concerned, both from the human and the economic point of view. It is in that spirit that my right hon. Friend will be proceeding with consultations to make the necessary regulations. In connection with the lifting of weights, my right hon. Friend will be considering the problem referred to by hon. Members opposite in just the same way.
If it be possible to introduce a greater measure of safety; if it be possible to reduce strains which are unnecessary, I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend would wish to do so. In this matter, as in others, we must proceed, by consultation, carefully to assess just what are the practical problems and what may be done practically and sensibly to relieve them.
I think that all that need be said has been said about this valuable Measure. May I pay a tribute to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have helped in the passage of this Bill and say that I hope it will not be long before it reaches the Statute Book.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

SLUM CLEARANCE (COMPENSATION) [MONEY] (No. 2)

Resolution reported,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make additional provision for payments in respect of certain unfit houses subject to compulsory purchase, clearance, demolition or closing orders, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable under any other enactment out of moneys so provided which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session providing—

A. That where a house was vacated before, but was still in existence on, the thirteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-five. the provisions of the said Act of the present Session shall have effect as if the house had been vacated immediately after that day;
B. That a house which might have been the subject of a demolition order but which has, without the making of such an order, been demolished in pursuance of an undertaking to that effect given to the local authority shall be deemed for the purposes of the said Act of the present Session to have been vacated at the date of its demolition in pursuance of a demolition order made and served at the date when the undertaking was given;
C. That the calculation for the purposes of any provision of the said Act of the present Session of compensation in accordance with subsections (1) and (4) of section forty of the Housing Act, 1936, shall be made as if paragraph 2 of the Fourth Schedule to the said Act of 1936 had not been passed.

Resolution agreed to.

SLUM CLEARANCE (COMPENSATION) BILL

Order for consideration as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 1, page 1, line 26, and page 2, line 1; and Clause 4, page 4, line 14, and page 5, line 1, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Sandys.—[Mr. Powell.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF UNFIT HOUSES OCCUPIED BY OWNERS.)

6.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): I beg to move in page 1, line 26, at the end to insert:
(2) The foregoing subsection shall have effect—

(a) where a person ceased to occupy a house or part of a house not more than one year before the said thirteenth day of December by reason only of a posting in the course of his duties as a member of the armed forces of the Crown or of a change in the place of his employment or occupation, as if that person had occupied that house or part on that day in like manner as immediately before he ceased to occupy it; and
(b) where a house had been vacated before the said thirteenth day of December in consequence of the making of a compulsory purchase order in respect thereof or in pursuance of a clearance order, demolition order or closing order but the demolition of that house had not been started by that day, as if that house had been occupied on that day by the same person and in the like manner as immediately before it was vacated and, in the case of a clearance. demolition or closing order, as if it had been vacated immediately after that day.


This new subsection is designed to widen the scope of the improved compensation provided by the Bill in two distinct classes of case. I will deal, first, with those covered by paragraph (a) in the new subsection. As the Bill stands, it is necessary, in order that an owner-occupier may qualify for the higher rate of compensation, that he should be in occupation of the house on 13th December last, which was the date when the provisions of the Bill were announced by my right hon. Friend.
Generally speaking, where the owner-occupier quitted his house owing to a necessary move earlier than that date, as he bought the house with vacant possession he would have been able so to sell it again with vacant possession, and to recoup if not the whole of what he had paid, at any rate a substantial proportion.
In recent months, however, even before 13th December, it was becoming increasingly unlikely that he would be able to do so. Slum clearance was being resumed on an increasing scale and the dangers of purchasing houses which might shortly be dealt with by way of slum clearance were brought to the attention of the general public, through the local authorities, by my right hon. Friend in a circular issued last autumn.
Owner-occupiers who had to quit their houses in the months preceding 13th December might well find themselves in the position of being forced to let those houses and being unable to resell them with vacant possession, thus losing the benefits of the Bill and virtually the whole of what they might have paid for the freehold or for the leasehold of the house.
It is to meet that class of case that paragraph (a) of this subsection is designed. It provides that where an owner-occupier had to leave, either by necessity of service in the Armed Forces or by necessity of employment in the 12 months preceeding 13th December, 1955, and if otherwise qualified, he shall benefit by the provisions of the Bill although he was not in occupation on 13th December. The period of a year is necessarily arbitrary, as any chosen period must be. Clearly, k would be wrong to push this concession too far back into the past, and, equally clearly, it would be wrong to fasten on some very recent date such as that of the issue of my right hon. Friend's circular. There will still be cases which will fall on the other side of the dividing line, but I am confident that this Amendment will deal with the great majority of cases of real hardship arising from necessity on the part of an owner-occupier to quit his house in the recent past.
Paragraph (b) deals with an entirely different case. It is where a house, before 13th December was, as it were, part of the slum clearance operation and where the owner had left the,house although the house was still standing on

13th December last. In the course of the re-housing necessitated by the slum clearance operation there might be a case where two owner-occupiers, perhaps living in the same street, were both affected by the same clearance order or compulsory purchase order and where one had co-operated with the local authority and got out before 13th December, while the other had stuck it out as late as he could and was still in occupation on 13th December.
As the Bill stands, the first man would not benefit by the Bill and the second would. This seems quite wrong, and the effect of paragraph (b) is that where a house was unoccupied on 13th December, 1955, because it had been vacated in the course of slum clearance operations, the owner, if otherwise qualified under the Bill, should be able to benefit by the concessions which the Bill affords.

Mr. H. G. Randall: I think it should be on record that the idea in paragraph (a) of the new subsection was voiced originally by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger). The hon. Member moved a very restrictive Amendment which concerned only Service men. My hon. Friends indicated to the Parliamentary Secretary that we could not accept an Amendment which was confined to one class of person. Many industrial workers might have to move from one part of the country to another, and we believed that if there had to be a new rate of compensation, the benefit should go to the whole of the community rather than to one section.
The point of my intervention is to put it on record that the idea in the Amendment was originated upstairs in Committee. It was then a very restrictive one. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his conversations with his right hon. Friend which have enabled us to have an Amendment which will cover the whole community and give an additional right of compensation.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: This is a very illogical and haphazard Bill, intended to meet a hardship that we all recognise but all find rather difficult to define. The effect of the Amendment, at any rate of the first part of it, is a very good illustration. As the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, it substitutes


one time-limit for another in certain cases and for some purposes, but it has another effect.
Take the case of a man who bought an insanitary house because he could not find anywhere else to go, and happened to do so in the last year of what is called the "material period," between December, 1954, and December, 1955. This shows how difficult it is to deal with this sort of case and what an illogical Measure this is. This man's rights will be completely different if he bought from an ex-Service man during that period from what they would have been if he had bought from anyone else. The ex-Service man possibly could not occupy it any longer because the exigencies of the Service made him move somewhere else. The effect of the Amendment is to deem the ex-Service man as continuing in occupation during the material period.
Since there cannot be two people in occupation and both entitled to compensation, it seems that the man who bought from the ex-Service man will not have qualified for the benefit that was intended. I am putting this point to the Parliamentary Secretary because he may have an answer. If he has, I shall be very glad to give way to him and hear what it is.

Mr. Powell: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is under a misapprehension. If A is the ex-Service man and is the person who is not, and B buys the house from A in the last 12 months, will qualify for compensation because is the owner on the date when compulsory acquisition, or whatever the operation may be, takes effect.
The case in which A will benefit is where A lets a house of which he is still the owner of an interest at the time of compulsory acquisition, or whatever the operation may be.

Mr. Mitchison: I must ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look carefully at the paragraphs he has drafted. They do not require that the house should be occupied or let on a weekly tenancy or anything of that sort, on 13th December, 1955. If that is intended, paragraph (a) is far from clear.
Let the Parliamentary Secretary consider the effect of what he is now saying. Two people cannot be entitled to com-

pensation. If the man who goes in, B, is to get it because he was there on 13th December, 1955, what about the ex-Service man? Suppose there is a division of compensatable interest between them, or a lease, or something of that sort. I am not clear that the Amendment may not result in unfairness and hardship.
We all recognise that there ought to be special provision for people who, by reason of Service requirements or of what I may more generally call "national requirements" during the war, had to move, either because of Service orders or because of the nature of their job. We are glad that some provision is being made to meet those cases, but this is a hit-and-miss Bill in this respect as in other respects. We are all trying to do the same thing and I hope that it will work out all right, but I have an uneasy suspicion that we may find that in some cases we have done a little injustice in this rather complicated Measure at the cost of doing a rough measure of equity rather than of justice in other cases. I trust that it will work.
The second point, in paragraph (b), shows that the Government had not thought out carefully enough what they intended to do. They have now recognised that they ought to have thought of it at the beginning instead of at the end. We are glad of the Government's repentance even at this comparatively late stage. Therefore, on both grounds, we on this side of the Committee welcome the Amendment.

Dr. Horace King: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will look carefully at what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has said, which is obviously what the Committee would wish to happen; but it is just conceivable that there will be two people with a right to claim compensation in respect of the same property and they may both claim unless the wording of the Bill is altered in some way.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 2. line 1, leave out "the foregoing subsection" and insert:
subsection (1) of this section."—[Mr. Powell.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, at the beginning to insert:
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a house which might have been the subject of a demolition order but which has, without the making of such an order, been demolished in pursuance of an undertaking to that effect given to the local authority shall be deemed to have been vacated at the date of its demolition in pursuance of a demolition order made and served at the dale when the undertaking was given.
The proposed new subsection meets a request which was made by the Association of Municipal Corporations who, as slum clearance widens, are able to make use on an increasing scale of the voluntary procedure of demolition by agreement rather than demolition by demolition order. It seemed right that the same compensation should be made available to an owner-occupier who demolished his house by agreement as to an owner-occupier who demolished it as the result of an order from the local authority to do so. That is the effect of the proposed new subsection.

Mr. Mitchison: I told the Parliamentary Secretary when we debated the Financial Resolution what I thought of him and of his right hon. Friend in connection with this Amendment. We entirely agree with it. We wanted to do it. We knew about it, because exactly the same point arose on the Housing Subsidies Bill.
We knew all about it for another reason, which is that progressive Labour-controlled authorities have very largely done this; and, of course, it is a sensible and right thing to do. Those authorities ought to be given every support in carrying it out. Therefore, while regretting the matters of form, which it would be entirely out of order for me to dwell on now, in connection with the Financial Resolution, I say that we welcome wholeheartedly this Amendment. We hope that the Government will think of it at the beginning instead of at the end next time.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 5, line 1, after "Act", to insert:
and paragraph 2 of the Fourth Schedule to that Act had not been passed".
Unlike the matter with which we have just been dealing, this is one which, within the rules of order, hon. Members

on both sides of the Committee raised, both on the Second Reading and in the Committee. The general object of Clauses 1 and 2 is to provide for the classes of persons defined in those Clauses compensation assessed as though their property were not being compulsorily acquired as unfit. Immediately one provides that the property shall be acquired otherwise than as unfit the code which comes into force is the code of compulsory acquisition laid down basically in the 1919 Act, the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, but as applied by Section 40 of the principal Act of 1936 read in conjunction with the Fourth Schedule to that Act.
The Fourth Schedule provides, in paragraph 2, that where houses are
... in a state of defective sanitation, or not in reasonably good repair, the compensation shall be the estimated value of the premises if put into a sanitary condition, or reasonably good repair, less the estimated expense of putting them into such condition or repair.
In practice, paragraph 4 of the Fourth Schedule has been very rarely invoked in arriving at assessment of compensation for the purposes to which it applies, the acquisition of houses under Part III other than unfit houses and the acquisition of houses under Part V. In practice, also, there is no greater difficulty—if the Committee will forgive me using the jargon in—valuing at market value "pink" houses than "grey" houses. It is as easy in one case as in the other to find analogous properties which have changed hands and to draw deductions of value from one to the other.
It might, therefore, well be the case that paragraph 2 of the Fourth Schedule would remain as ineffective in its application to the valuation of "pink" houses as it has hitherto been in its application to the valuation of "grey" houses and houses under Part V. Nevertheless, by this Bill we are applying the code of valuation designed for fit houses for the first time to a new purpose, namely, to the valuation under this Bill of houses which are recognised to be unfit, and which are being dealt with as unfit houses under Part III of the principal Act.
There is, therefore, some risk, which has been referred to by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, that this new application of the old code might


revive—I might almost say might bring into use for the first time—this provision of the Fourth Schedule of the 1936 Act. The effect in certain cases might be to reduce the sum payable to the dispossessed owner-occupier to a figure not greatly in excess of site value, and possibly even less than site value.
It is to obviate that risk—no one at this stage can assess what the dimensions of the risk would have been—to eliminate that risk altogether that this Amendment is now proposed in the application of the 1936 Code to make the specific provision that paragraph 2 of the Fourth Schedule shall not be invoked and shall not be available.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on arguing for some time a wholly unarguable case. The case he was putting forward was that the Government had behaved with moderate sense in this matter. Unfortunately, they have done nothing of the sort. They deliberately put into this Bill a reference to two subsections of one of the Sections of the Housing Act and imported in that way the Schedule that provides for compensation. We are now to leave out paragraph 2.
Let us remember what an insanitary house is. It is a house which is so defective that it is not fit to live in and cannot be made fit at any reasonable cost. That has always been taken to mean that it cannot be made fit at any cost which would make the result worth the money spent on it. It is what in the insurance world is called the constructive total loss. That is exactly what is meant by an insanitary house. Let us look at subsection 2:
If the arbitrator is satisfied that any premises are in a state of defective sanitation…compensation shall be the estimated value of the premises if put into a sanitary condition…less the estimated expense of putting them into such condition…
That would be a nil and minus figure. It arises from the nature of an insanitary house—

Mr. Powell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but there is really no way out of that.
Worse than that, he is now trying to tell us it is quite true it is on the Statute Book, it is part of the law of the land and an arbitrator is bound to follow it, but, in practice, arbitrators always break the law. That, really, is what the hon. Gentleman said just now. He said that this provision is never applied. If it is not, somebody had better see what arbitrators are doing. The job of arbitrators is to carry out the law; it is ours to make it and the job of the Minister is to see that it is carried out administratively. The Minister should be the last person to say, "Here is a schedule on compensation. I am leaving out something now which is part of the law, but it does not really matter very much because no one ever kept to it before." That is about the worst sort of argument that could possibly be brought forward.
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman one or two things. As he knows perfectly well, we started this on Second Reading. We could not remedy it within the rules of order because it would mean that local authorities would have to pay more compensation and, therefore, there would have to be an addition to the Exchequer equalisation grant. A Money Resolution would have been required and has, in fact, been required to put it right. The matter was raised on Second Reading, but neglected entirely by the Government, who did not listen to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) or by their own supporter, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon). They paid no attention but went on with the Money Resolution and then found that they had to introduce this Amendment.
There was another reason. I have always said that this Bill was very closely tied up with municipal elections. There was the pamphlet, "Local Elections 1956 Q. and A." It costs Is. 6d.—rather dear at the price and comes from the Conservative Research Department. We should remember that it came out before the supplementary Resolution, because this provision was made to put right what obviously was wrong before. It came out at the time when no arbitrator, therefore, could possibly have given the full market value for an insanitary house.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will not object to being collectively described as a dog, but here


is the tail and the tail is wagging the dog this time. The Conservative Research Department told us just before the local elections that under the Slum Clearance (Compensation) Bill, owner-occupiers of unfit houses who bought their houses since the outbreak of war in 1939, would, subject to certain qualifying conditions, get compensation based on current value for existing use.
They would not have got it if this Amendment were not there. They would not have got it at the time when this pamphlet was issued. They would not even have got it when the elections were held. Now steps are being taken to carry it out. The tail—the Conservative Party Research Department—has wagged that enormous dog that I see opposite me.
The hon. Gentleman knows all about the Conservative Party Research Department. I think that some of his past was spent there, and he knows all about quoting from the publications of the other side. He used to do it quite a short time ago. I will now tell him what is happening. He read this to see how his successors were doing, and he said, "That is what I wanted to do in the Bill." He looked at the Bill at long last, and discovered that he had not done it, and then perhaps, at long last, he remembered the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes, which he had so sadly neglected, and those of the hon. Member for Norwich. South.
At long last, there is another token of repentance following out the tail. The dog has moved, and the Amendment is at last introduced to do what the Conservative Party's Research Department, before it was introduced, said the Bill could then do. Well, well, what a state of affairs. What a bit of machinery. What a bit of a muddle. What an exhibition of hurried incompetence, just in time to catch "Questions and Answers" for the local elections of 1956, in which they did not do very well, after all, but that is not the subject matter of this Amendment.
Who can say that they did not try? They certainly did. The Research Department comes out in intelligent and hopeful anticipation, and the hon. Gentleman gets up today and moves the necessary Amendment. Of course, it is right. It is what we all want to do. I would only say to him that the next time he brings

in a Bill and blows the trumpet, he should make quite certain that, at any rate, the Bill can do what he wants it to do before he moves the Second Reading. For the third time, I would say to him that he should never neglect the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes, who knows a great deal about local government, because the hon. Gentleman would be very foolish to neglect them.

Mr. James MacColl: I do not rise to thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) for his entirely unsolicited testimonial, but because I think that here there really is a very shocking state of affairs. It is wrong that a party pamphlet, if pamphlet it be, should apparently foreshadow legislation in this House.

Mr. Powell: Why is that wrong?

Mr. MacColl: Because I have always understood that we who are elected to this House were supposed, in the light of our own judgment, to pass our opinions and make our own decisions on these matters. I thought we were supposed to make perfectly clear what we thought, and, certainly, I was not under the impression that, at any rate on this side of the House, instead of being free and independent people, we were the lackeys of any party organisation. Nor are we accustomed to take our points of view from the election literature which anticipates what is going to happen.
I want to make it perfectly clear that I think that my hon. and learned Friend was a little too charitable to the Parliamentary Secretary. My hon. and learned Friend said that the hon. Gentleman had ignored my humble contribution upstairs, but the hon. Gentleman did not do that. He uttered words which I think deserve a wider public than they got, and, therefore, with permission, I will read them. The hon. Gentleman said:
The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) was quite right "—
That ought to be underlined. It ought to be known that the hon. Gentleman conceded that. He went on—
"in denying, and it has never been claimed, that the effect of the Bill is to make market value payable for these houses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 19th April, 1956, c. 88.]


The hon. Gentleman, with that unfortunate clarity of mind which so ill equips him to be a junior Minister in a Conservative Government, had seen through the facade of political bunkum which has surrounded this Bill. He saw quite clearly that it amounted to very little indeed, and that it did not do what people generally said it was intended to do—provide market value compensation. The hon. Gentleman knew on 19th April that the Bill did not provide market value compensation, although apparently the Conservative Party Research Department was under the impression that it did, and no doubt even the printing machines were grinding out the nonsense which was subsequently pushed on to the unfortunate electors.
It must have been subsequently that somebody, reading through the proceedings of Standing Committee B, discovered that what the hon. Gentleman had said, or the explanation of the Bill which was being given, was quite different from what, in fact, the Conservative Party was trying to pretend to the electors that it was doing. Therefore, one or the other had to give way, and it was not the Conservative Party outside which gave way, but the Government who gave way—the same Government who had been quite indifferent to the pleas of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) and quite indifferent to pleas made by hon. Members on this side of the House both on Second Reading and in Committee, and which had refused to budge on this question at all. Suddenly, something happened which caused them to change their minds so quickly, and one could have a shrewd suspicion that my guess as to what happened was about right.
I do not know how this is going to work. My hon. and learned Friend, with his great wisdom and experience, thinks it will work well, but the Government are floundering about in an extraordinary mess. Somebody in the nineteenth century produced a very apt remark, which every student who has to answer a paper on the British constitution trots out in his answer, to the effect that Parliament can do anything except turn a man into a woman. The hon. Gentleman is not trying to turn a man into a woman, but I think he is trying to do

something equally arrogant. He is trying to turn pink into grey.
I do not see how we can alter the colour of property simply by changing legislation in this way. "Grey" property under a clearance order is property which is fit to live in; "pink" property is unfit to live in. Therefore, we cannot change the property itself simply by saying that, for the purposes of this Act, pink will be grey, that if an owner-ocupier happens to be in possession of a house we shall call it "grey" property, whereas the house next door, where we have not got an owner-occupier, will be called "pink" property. It will cause the most extraordinary administrative problems. Would it not be so very much simpler and straight forward and honest to tell these people that they are to have an ex gratia payment which will not be wrapped up and represented to be the value of the property, because it does not, in fact, represent the value of the property?
In the discussion upstairs, the hon. Gentleman quite clearly said that it was impossible to talk about the market value of the property. It is not the market value that is being given, but an ex gratia payment, and it would be much simpler to call it that, and not try to mess up and distort legislation which is already complicated enough to deal with special cases which are recognised as unlikely to be very numerous, but which, I gather from what the hon. Gentleman said on Second Reading, will be cases which will require sympathetic help.
The hon. Gentleman said that it was possible to find out the market value of "pink" property by looking at the transactions which were taking place, but what sort of transactions are taking place in "pink" property? We are at once in an atmosphere of black market, of "spivs," of the person who tries to take advantage of an innocent purchaser, because nobody consciously and willingly buys slum property unless he is a rogue trying to get something out of it for himself, or an innocent person who is being deceived by somebody who is hiding the essential facts about it.
7.0 p.m.
Is the valuer going to dig about in this somewhat murky market of rather bogus transactions in slum property and try to get a fair price out of them? It will not only be an extraordinarily degrading


occupation but it will also be an extraordinarily unfair one, because it will create widely different prices in different parts of the country. In some cases, where there is a lot of "pink" property, presumably there will be different levels of prices from those in areas where there is tight control and where there are not many dealings in such property.
It seems to me that the Government will get themselves into very great difficulties. However, that is their look-out. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the general principle and motive behind the Amendment are good, as far as they are not linked simply with the more ineffective side of local party politics. The idea of giving fair play to owner-occupiers is reasonable, and, therefore. I will not resist the Amendment, although I must say, in conclusion, that it will lead to considerable complications.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported. with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

Clause 1.—(PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF UNFIT HOUSES OCCUPIED BY OWNERS.)

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, at the end to insert:
Provided that, in relation to an interest which, at the date when the house was purchased compulsorily or, as the case may be, vacated, was held by virtue of an agreement to purchase by instalments, this subsection shall have effect as if the words "and any such payment shall be dealt with" were omitted therefrom, and the payment shall be made to the person entitled to the interest at the said date.
(3) Where a payment falls to be made under this section in respect of any person's interest in a house and at the date when the house was purchased compulsorily or, as the case may be, vacated, that interest was the subject of a mortgage, or other charge or an agreement to purchase by instalments, either party to the mortgage, charge or agreement may apply to the county court who, after giving to the other party to the mortgage, charge or agreement an opportunity of being heard, may, if the court thinks fit, make an order—

(a) in the case of a house which has been purchased compulsorily, discharging or modifying any outstanding liabilities of the person aforesaid by virtue of any bond, covenant or other obligation with respect to the debt secured by the mortgage or charge or by virtue of the agreement; or

(b) in the case of a house vacated in pursuance of a clearance order, demolition order or closing order, discharging or modifying the terms of the mortgage, charge or agreement,

and in either case either unconditionally or subject to such terms and conditions, including conditions with respect to the payment of moneys, as the court may think just and equitable to impose.
(4) In determining in any case what order, if any, to make under the last foregoing subsection, the court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case, and in particular, in the case of a mortgage or charge

(a) to whether the mortgagee or person entitled to the benefit of the charge acted reasonably in advancing the principal sum on the security of the house; and
(b) to the extent to which the house may have become unfit for human habitation owing to any default on the part of the mortgagor or person entitled to the interest charged in carrying out any obligation under the terms of the mortgage or charge with respect to the repair of the house,

or, in the case of an agreement to purchase by instalments, to how far the amount already paid by way of principal, or, where the house has been purchased compulsorily, the aggregate of that amount and so much, if any, of the compensation in respect of the compulsory purchase as falls to be paid to the vendor, represents an adequate price for the purchase; and for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection the mortgagee or person entitled to the benefit of the charge shall be deemed to have acted unreasonably if, at the time when the mortgage or charge was made, he knew or ought to have known that the house did not afford sufficient security for the principal sum advanced.
I do not know whether it would be convenient if we discussed at the same time the following Amendment, also in page 2, line 8, which relates to the same matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): If it meets the convenience of the House it seems to me that they can be discussed together.

Mr. Powell: The object of the Amendment, which stands in my right hon. Friend's name, is to deal with a situation which was discussed at some length in Committee and which my right hon. Friend promised to study. That is the situation where the owner-occupier of a house dealt with in Clause I of the Bill is either a mortgagor or else is buying the house under a tenant-purchaser agreement. In such a case, as the law stands and as the Bill stands, after the amount received by him under the Bill has been paid in part satisfaction of his outstanding liabilities, the remainder would still be a


personal debt owed by him, although he would not have the value of the property and although the security on which the money was lent would have ceased to exist. The object of the Amendment is to enable the courts to discharge or modify such outstanding liabilities.
If I might draw the attention of the House to the individual parts of the Amendment, the proviso with which it begins relates to tenant-purchase agreements. The effect of that proviso is that instead of the payment being dealt with under the Lands Clauses Acts, in which case it would fall to be shared between the purchaser and vendor, it is paid to the purchaser.
That is a necessary Amendment, because in the case of a tenant-purchaser the only interest which is compensated under the Bill is the tenant-purchaser's equitable interest; it is not the interest of the vendor. It is therefore obviously right that the entire payment should go to the owner of that equitable interest. That is the effect of the proviso.
In subsection (3) it is provided that where there are outstanding liabilities after the payment has been dealt with in accordance with the Lands Clauses Acts, the court may discharge or modify those liabilities. Subsection (4) then indicates the factors to which the court is to have regard in deciding whether, and if so how, to modify or discharge the liabilities. Those factors are, first, whether the unfitness of the house is in any way the fault of the owner-occupier and, secondly, whether the person who lent the money, if I may use the slightly inaccurate expression—whether the mortgagee—acted unreasonably in advancing the sum which he did advance upon that security.
In the case of a tenant-purchaser agreement, the court is asked to look at the relationship between what the vendor has got altogether and what was a reasonable price for the house. The effect is that where an owner-occupier, after a slum clearance operation, is left with outstanding personal liabilities, resulting either from the particular form of a tenant-purchaser agreement or from a mortgage or some other charge, the court is enabled to modify or discharge those personal liabilities, having regard to the circumstances of that particular case.
The effect of the Amendment differs from that of the Amendment which we are considering with it in this way; by the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) the personal liabilities would be automatically wiped out when the payment was satisfied and dealt with in accordance with the Lands Clauses Acts. The difficulty about proceeding in that apparently simpler way is that there may well be cases where it would not be fair or proper for those outstanding liabilities to be wholly discharged. There is, for example, the case where the unfitness of the house may be due to the default of the owner-occupier himself. In that case it would clearly be unreasonable that the lender of the money should suffer by a default which was not his own.
There may also be cases where the lender of the money acted no less reasonably than the borrower of the money. There are hard cases, though they may well not be numerous, amongst the lenders of money, especially in friendly and personal arrangements, as well as amongst the borrowers.
It therefore seemed to the Government that it was better to entrust a discretion in this matter to the court rather than that, whenever a slum clearance operation resulted in Clause I operating, the outstanding liability should automatically be wiped out.

Mr. Mitchison: I should like, first, to make it quite clear to the Parliamentary Secretary that we are grateful for an attempt having been made to deal with a position which, while it is not likely to occur often, may cause a very great deal of hardship. We on this side raised the point in Committee on an Amendment rather similar to that which stands in my name and which we are now discussing. The hon. Gentleman pointed out, quite rightly, to the Committee that to do anything of the sort involved interference to some extent in a bargain that had been made—compensation or repayment, whatever one cares to call it—in favour of one person at the expense of another, and in relations generally between citizens as distinct from relations between local authorities, on the one hand, and citizens, on the other.
He pointed out all that, and he is quite right in saying that all he and his right hon. Friend undertook to do was to look


at the matter. If I am somewhat critical of the method he suggests, let me assure him at once that I do appreciate the way in which the point we made has been taken up, and I do understand that a real effort has been made to meet it. Having said that. I want to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that this is—as I am sure he would admit, if he had not already done so—a rather illogical sort of Bill to deal with a general form of hardship, and that in all probability the particular cases with which we are concerned will be quite small in number. That is so, but they may be hard cases.
What the hon. Gentleman is really suggesting is that a man who has had to live in an unfit house and has had to buy it during the war because he could not find anywhere else to go, and has then not had enough money to pay for it and has had either to borrow, mortgage, or buy by instalments—which, I understand, is quite a fairly common practice in this sort of case—should be driven to the county court to get his remedy. I really do take exception to that.
We are dealing here, by the very nature of the case, with very poor people; people who have been in very considerable financial difficulty—they could not raise the money—and who may by no means be out of the difficulty yet. We are not dealing with large sums at all, but those people have to go to county court to get their remedy. If and when this or any other Government really make legal proceedings in a county court either free or very cheap, and thereby carry out the promise made, I think, in Magna Charta that no one should be denied justice—and people often are denied it now because of the cost—if and when that time comes, I shall have no objection to this Clause. I do say that at present—with all the respect I have for the profession to which I myself belong, and the particular respect I have for the people who carry out the rather difficult job of being county court judges, and do it very well—it is none the less wrong to drive poor people in difficulties to a court for a remedy if any other way of doing it can be found.
I give the hon. Gentleman this at once. He said that what I suggested might also cause hardship at times. I think that it may. It is a rougher form of justice than that which he suggests,

but I would say that the balance of the hardship that might be caused to lenders by what I propose is considerably less than the sum of the minor hardships that will be caused by driving poor people to county courts for their remedy. Therefore, on the balance of the matter, I would rather risk doing a little bit of rough dealing occasionally to the lender than to drive the rather more numerous class of people who want a remedy when they have borrowed—as it turned out improvidently—to the court to get the matter put right. That is the substance of the difference between us.
7.15 p.m.
I want to deal now with one or two broad points, and I shall not take long about it. First of all, what are we doing here? In effect, we are saying to the lender, "Here's the lot. Here's what you lent your money on. Here's the house in the form it has now taken"— that is to say, two kinds of compensation—"and there will be nothing left at the end of it." All we are forbidding the lender to do, or the man selling on instalments, is to go—which is unfair in this instance—for the balance he can get out of it after he has had all the compensation. That is not bad rough justice.
We are here dealing with people who had to go into these houses, had to buy them because they could not find anywhere else to live. That is the type of man we are considering, and all that is being done to protect him from afterwards having to pay out of his pocket the balance, which was beyond the real value of the security upon which the contract was made. Whether it was by mortgage or by sale by instalments, there can be no reasonable doubt that what the lender was really looking to was the bricks and mortar, the insanitary house or whatever it was. Whether it was a building society going too far, or some other lender, or a sale by instalments, the person or society that lent hoped to get the money back because the house, which was for the time being a man's home, was an essential part of the bargain.
I have always felt it unfair that in cases of this sort the personal liability should go on; that a man who had taken away from him, no doubt quite rightly, his home, upon which the advance or the


instalment sale was originally made, should still be chased on a personal liability for the balance. Therefore, I say that, considering that we are dealing with a smallish number of cases, considering that the basis of the whole Bill is to right a rather indefinable injustice that we do recognise, considering that the man whom the Bill seeks to look after is this particular type of person who has had to buy and to live in an insanitary house because he could not find anywhere else to go, I think that for once we would be right not to be too legal about the matter and to let a bit of horse-sense and a bit of—dare I say? —warm-heartedness have their way, and make the lender rather than the borrower suffer so far as there had been too much lent or too much handed over by way of an instalment sale on the house.
I believe that in the long run that would not really be doing much hardship to building societies, it would not really be doing much hardship to people who make a business of lending money, and it would not really be doing much hardship to people who have been selling these insanitary houses on instalments. All those people can look after themselves—or some supernatural power above or below will no doubt look after them. Our business is not to look too nicely at that if the alternative means driving this particular type of poor man to a county court for his remedy.
People are very afraid of the law. They are afraid of the cost of it. They regard lawyers, most unreasonably, as wicked and rapacious people. They do not like the law. I am not saying for a minute that they are right—I do not think that they are—but I do say that that feeling exists, and if these very long and complicated provisions, rather than the simple remedy we propose, are put on the Statute Book, a lot of people will be deprived of any effective remedy at all. In addition, they are singularly difficult provisions to follow. I agree that the Amendment does what it is intended to do, but think of the poor man who is in real difficulties with a building society and who is told that his remedy is in all that wording. It would be simpler to tell him, "Hand the lot over and then they cannot shoot you for any more".
Therefore, while we welcome very much the fact that some provision is being made for these cases, and we welcome it all the more because we raised this matter in the first place, we shall feel impelled to vote against the Minister's Amendment, not because we do not want something done—we do; we are the people who suggested it—but because we think that our way of doing it is simpler and fairer in the long run.
There is a procedural difficulty about this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary knows all about jumping the housing queue, I am sure. He would not be in the Ministry if he did not. But there is also this jumping the amending queue. We on this side of the House put down our Amendment first, and we should have liked to have voted on that, but Ministers have a prerogative right to jump the amending queue, so we have to vote on his Amendment before we get to our own. Therefore, when we vote against the Minister's Amendment, no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary and his hon. Friends will understand—and I hope the Conservative research department will also understand—that we are doing so not because of what his Amendment tries to remedy, but because we do not like the way in which the Minister wishes to do it.

Dr. King: Whichever of the two Amendments we adopt, I think it will be a good Amendment to a useful Bill. I want to thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) for having raised this matter in Committee, and I want also to thank the Minister for more than fulfilling the very non-committal promise which he made in Committee and which he has generously improved upon in introducing his Amendment.
Of all the owner-occupiers who suffer from slum clearance, surely those who are worst off are those who are to receive compensation which is so small that it does not pay off the mortgage which is left owing. Last week the hon. Member for Test (Mr. J. Howard), whom I am pleased to see in the House, and I attended a meeting of owner-occupiers in Southampton. They were angry and indignant and felt a sense of injustice. Among those owner-occupiers, the most angry and those who felt that they were


being treated most unjustly were those who will soon find themselves without a house and yet still having to pay interest on the mortgage of a house which they do not wish to leave, which will no longer be theirs, and which will not even be there.
The purport of both these Amendments is to make sure that the owner-occupier does not start on the day on which he leaves his house with a debt, with less than nothing. I know that in a number of cases this means shifting some portion of the burden to the building societies, but I think the building societies are wealthy enough to carry this burden as compared with the poor owner-occupier. Indeed, one might argue that the building societies were expert enough in housing matters to have known how much money to advance on property and ought to have known that the house value was low if it was potentially in a slum clearance area.
The Government have accepted the principle advocated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering in Committee, but I believe that the Government Amendment has so many "ifs" and "buts" in it from the point of view of the owner-occupier that it will make his position very difficult indeed. As I read subsection (4) of the Government's Amendment, the county court judge will have to consider certain factors when deciding whether to relieve the owner-occupier of his debt. If the building society can prove that it was justified in lending as much money as it did, the owner-occupier will not be relieved of the burden of the remainder of mortgage after the compensation has wiped out some bit of it. Moreover, if the owner-occupier cannot prove that it was not his fault that the house became substandard, again the county court judge will have to decide that the owner-occupier must accept the liability of the remaining mortgage.
Let us remember that if the case goes to the county court, in that place there will be an argument between powerful and legally and technically well-equipped building societies, on the one hand, and a poor individual, on the other hand. Why should the owner-occupier have to go to the county court at all? Surely he is carrying enough on his shoulders at the moment. He is to be dispossessed. Even if the remaining mortgage is wiped off, the compensation he will receive he still

thinks is inadequate. Why add to his burden the expense and worry of having to appear in the county court before a judge to defend against powerful building societies his claim to have the mortgage cancelled?
Moreover, as I read the Government's Amendment, the owner-occupier will have to prove that when he borrowed the money he did not know that the property was not going to be worth the amount that was lent on it. This is asking too much of him. I believe that the Government Amendment ties the hands of the county court judge. I would rather that the matter were left entirely to the county court judge to decide on pure equity, instead of the provisos which the Government have put into their Amendment.
I beg the Government to have second thoughts. I think they have gone a long way to meet us. I appreciate the real concession that they have made to the Opposition in this matter, but I urge them to take the simpler and direct method proposed in the Opposition Amendment. I ask the Minister to accept the Opposition Amendment; even if the Government will not accept the wording, they might accept the principle and so ensure that no owner-occupier who comes within the terms of this Bill will have to face starting life afresh without a house and still carrying a burden of debt on that lost property.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I rise to correct what I think is a mistaken impression. This Bill does not apply to all owner-occupiers. It applies only to those who bought a house within what the Bill calls the "material period", which is 1st September, 1939, to 13th December, I955. The propaganda which has been going around to the effect that this Bill will do something for all owner-occupiers in slum areas is quite false. It would be quite wrong for anyone to get that impression. The property must have been bought within the "material period."
I have in mind a case which I think would support the plea of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) on behalf of the Amendment in his name. It concerns the widow of a railway worker who bought a house after the war started. I think she paid too much for it. It is in an area which will inevitably be declared a slum area


before many years are passed. If she is served with a notice, and if the Government Amendment is carried, before she can get rid of the additional liability, in spite of whatever compensation she will get, she will have to go to the county court and spend money and perhaps have a lot of worry and stress and then perhaps in the end she will not succeed in getting rid of the liability of paying for a house which she will no longer possess and will no longer live in. It seems to me, therefore, that much the better course to take is that suggested by my hon. and learned Friend in his Amendment of leaving the matter as one between the person concerned and the local authority.
7.30 p.m.
Although we are now at a late stage, I hope that the Government may, perhaps in another place, be able to think again and try to avoid the necessity for having to go to the county courts. If we had the benefit of the Legal Aid and Advice Act in full operation, that might help; but, as one who has had considerable experience of telling people that they must go to the county court to have rectified some legal trouble, and of the difficulties they always have in finding enough money to do so, I would suggest to the House that we would be wrong not to find some better means of solving this problem. In any case, this is a special matter which we are dealing with, something which arises out of the housing conditions which the war created, and the difficulties of people who bought these houses, not because they were buying something worth while but in order to have a roof over their heads. We ought, in these circumstances, to find some better, easier and less costly method which people can adopt. I have said time after time that I do not think much of the terms of this Bill, but at any rate if people are to be able to take advantage of what good there may be in it, they should be able to do so without having to spend a lot of money in the courts.
I am not a lawyer. It seems to me that the Amendment suggested by my hon. and learned Friend is one which would give people such an opportunity. If it will not, then I would ask the Government to have another look at the whole matter and, at a later stage, consider whether they might not adopt some

such procedure as is suggested in our Amendment.

Mr. Donald Wade: I agree that this proposed Amendment will go some way towards meeting the criticisms put forward, but I also agree with some of the observations which have been passed upon it. It is clear it will affect only a limited number of cases. For example, it will affect only those who have bought within the material period. I submit, also, that there will be difficulties in interpretation.
May I give just one example of that, from the point of view of the lender rather than the borrower—not from any particular natural sympathy for lenders, but merely by way of illustration? In subsection (4) (a) there is a provision laying down the circumstances which the court must consider; the court shall, in particular have regard
to whether the mortgagee or person entitled to the benefit of the charge acted reasonably in advancing the principal sum on the security of the house.
At the end of this subsection there is the following provision, that
for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection the mortgagee or person entitled to the benefit of the charge shall be deemed to have acted unreasonably if, at the time when the mortgage or charge was made, he knew or ought to have known that the house did not afford sufficient security for the principal sum advanced.
There are cases where, as a friendly arrangement, lenders lend money on the security of a house, knowing that the house may not be adequate security. It would appear to me, on my interpretation of that Clause, that, if an application were made to the court, the fact that the lender knew that the security was inadequate would result in his losing any right to claim on the personal covenant under the mortgage. I do not know whether that was intended, but, if that is the effect of the Clause, it would appear to me to be somewhat unreasonable.

Mr. John Howard: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Itchen (Dr. King) has referred to a meeting organised by owner-occupiers affected by slum clearance, which took place in Southampton on Friday. While we are both sympathetic with the position of the people who are affected by slum clearance schemes, I made it clear


at that meeting—and I reiterate it now— that, in my view, the Government have gone as far as they can go in moving this Clause and that people are being compensated or are being absolved from their liabilities if they have been unduly misled.
On the other hand, if people have acted rashly, then the manner in which the Clauses leave the onus upon them provides, I feel, a wise protection so that public money is not cast away and due precautions are taken before mortgages, and so forth, are cancelled.

Mr. Powell: If I may say so, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) put very fairly the quite narrow issue on which the House is about to decide. In favour of the Amendment which stands in his name, it may be urged that it is simple and that it avoids, on the part of those who will usually be very small people, the necessity for an application to the county court. That is true. On the other hand, we must weigh in the other scale the undoubted unfairness and injustice which may in some cases arise from such an automatic procedure, and the advantages of giving a discretion to an authority which I think we are all satisfied will exercise it wisely and fairly.
There are at least two grounds on which, as I indicated before, such injustice could arise. There is the case, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman did not refer, where demonstrably the unfitness of a house and the necessity for a demolition order—I imagine there would be a demolition order in such circumstances—is the fault of the borrower of the money, who has not observed the terms of the agreement into which he entered in regard to the repair of the house.

Dr. King: Will the Parliamentary Secretary remember that he is talking about owner-occupiers who have bought their own houses? The general experience in this country is that the owner-occupier does take a pride in his house. The last thing that would be true of him is that he would allow his house to get into a slum-like condition.

Mr. Powell: Quite so, but we also must remember that these houses are houses in slum areas. They are houses which, in

some instances, will have been in the ownership of the owner-occupier for periods up to 17 years, and therefore, the standard of maintenance over so considerable a period may well determine whether a demolition order can or cannot be made, now or for some years in the future. That is one instance we have to bear in mind.
Secondly, there is a very real likelihood of cases arising—the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) was referring to this—where the lender of the money, who is not a building society and who is not a shark, but who is an individual and has engaged in an individual transaction to facilitate the purchase of an individual house, may suffer hardship. In such cases, the hardship may very well lie either apportioned between the two parties to the agreement or more on the side of the lender than of the borrower.
I may say here that I will undertake to look into the wording of subsection (4), to which the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West referred. He recognised the existence of this type of case. Cases have actually been brought to the attention of the Department, and I would willingly give details of them to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering. It is not an imaginary case; it is a real case, where an individual lender may be liable to suffer at least as great loss or hardship as the individual borrower.
The hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) said that he would have preferred to see subsection (4) removed and the matter left in the discretion of the court. So the hon. Member is really agreeing that this is a matter in which there ought to be discretion—that this is a matter in which individual transactions and the circumstances of the individual transactions ought to be looked at fairly and intelligently rather than that there should be an automatic wiping out by virtue of the application of Clause I of the Bill.
That is the issue which the House has to decide—whether it is to do the very rough justice of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment and thereby; imply for the sake of avoiding the necessity, which will not in all cases be a necessity, of application to a county court, perpetrate in a minority of cases what will undoubtedly be real unfairness. I would suggest to the House that the giving of


discretion and the giving of it in this form to the right course to take.

Division No. 192.]
AYES
[7.41 p.m.


Altken, W. T.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Arbuthnot, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Armstrong, C. W.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Ashton, H.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Atkins, H. E.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Nicholls, Harmar


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Barber, Anthony
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'mth, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Barlow, Sir John
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Nugent, G. R. H.


Barter, John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Oakshott, H. D.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Osborne, C.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Page, R. G.


Bidgood, J. C.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
HInchingbrooke, Viscount
Partridge, E.


Bishop, F. P.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Black, C. W.
Holt, A. F.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Pitman, I. J.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Howard, John (Test)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert(Harrow, W.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Pott, H. P.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Powell, J. Enoch


Browne, J. Nixon (Cralgton)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bryan, P.
Hurd, A. R.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh,W.)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Rameden, J. E.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Redmayne, M.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, D. L. M.


Campbell, Sir David
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Carr, Robert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Robson-Brown, W.


Cary, Sir Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Russell, R. S.


Channon, H.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Sharples, R. C.


Cole, Norman
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Soames, Capt. C.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. A. E.
Kaberry, D.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Crouch, R. F.
Keegan, D.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cunningham, Knox
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Kerr, H. W.
Studholme, H. G.


Dance, J. C. G.
Kershaw, J. A.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kimball, M.
Teeling, W.


Deedes, W. F.
Kirk P. M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lagden, G. W.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lambton, Viscount
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Drayson, G. B.
Leburn, W. G.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


du Cann, E. D. L.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Vosper, D. F.


Errington, Sir Eric
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Wade, D. W.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lucas, P.B.(Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fell, A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Finlay, Graeme
McKibbin, A. J.
Wall, Major Patrick


Fisher, Nigel
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Freeth, D. K.
Maddan, Martin
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Gammans, Sir David
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hon. Sir R
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Woollam, John Victor


Gibson-Watt, D.
Marshall, Douglas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Glover, D.
Mathew, R.
Mr. Leek and


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maude, Angus
Colonel J. H. Harrison.


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.



Green, A.
Medlicott. Sir Frank

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 208, Notes 173.

NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Proctor, W. T.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hale, Leslie
Pryde, D. J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Anderson, F rank
Hamilton, W. W.
Randall, H. E.


Awbery, S. S.
Hannan, W.
Rankin, John


Balfour, A.
Hastings, S.
Redhead, E. C.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Reeves, J.


Benson, G.
Hobson, C. R.
Reid, William


Beswick, F.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hoy, J. H.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robinson, Kenneth(St. Pancras, N.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hunter, A. E.
Ross, William


Blyton, W. R.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Royle, C.


Boardman, H.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Short, E. W.


Boyd, T. C.
Jeger, Mrs.Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs,S.)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brockway, A. F.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Burke, W. A.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Skeffington, A. M.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Kenyon, C.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
King, Dr. H. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Champion, A, J.
Lawson, G. M.
Snow, J. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Ledger, R. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Clunie, J.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sparks, J. A.


Coldrick, W.
Lewis, Arthur
Stones, W. (Consett)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Logan, D. G.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Collins, V.J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swingler, S. T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
MacColl, J. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Cove, W. G.
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McGovern, J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Grossman, R. H. S.
McInnes, J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
McLeavy, Frank
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mahon, Simon
Timmons, J.


Deer, G.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Tomney, F.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddered, E.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Delargy, H. J.
Mellish, R. J.
Viant, S. P.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Messer, Sir F.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Dye, S.
Mitohison, G. R.
West, D. G.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Moody, A. S.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Edelman, M.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Wigg, George


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mort, D. L.
Wilkins, W. A.


Edwards, Robert (BilatOn)
Moss, R.
Willey, Frederick


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Neal, Harold (Bolsovor)
Williams, David (Neath)


Fernyhough, E.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Fienburgh, W.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Fletcher, Eric
Oswald, T.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Forman, J. C.
Owen, W. J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Padley, W. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gibson, C. W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Woof, R. E.


Gooch, E. G.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Parkin, B. T.
Zilliacus, K.


Greenwood, Anthony
Paton, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Pearson, A.
Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price.


Grey, C. F.
Popplewell, E.



Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)
Probert, A. R.

2.—(PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS PREMISES IN UNFIT HOUSES.)

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, to leave out from "and" to "a" in line 18 and to insert:
at the date of the making of the order that house was occupied wholly or partly for the purposes of a business and the person entitled to the receipts of the business held an interest in the house, the appropriate authority shall make in respect of that interest ".
This Amendment, together with that which follows, is designed to close a loophole in the Clause to which attention was drawn in Committee by the hon. and

learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), namely, the possibility that a weekly tenant of premises used for business purposes—that is to say, a person who has no compensatable interest under the Bill—might by collusion with the owner of the house be allowed to change that into a tenancy of longer duration, which would be an interest compensatable under the Bill. This would then attract compensation under Clause 2 which could be shared between the owner and the tenant.
The effect of these two Amendments, taken together, is that there must have


been a compensatable interest either on 13th December, the date of the announcement of the main outlines of the Bill, or else for a continuous period of ten years up to the relevant slum clearance action. The Amendments will make it impossible for a short-term conversion, if I may so describe it, of a weekly tenancy into a compensatable interest to take place.

Mr. Mitchison: I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for meeting this point, which is of a little importance, and to tell him, being at intervals a fairly honest person, that the point had also occurred to the local authorities, who are, of course, very much concerned to see that the provisions of the Bill are not used to attract rate money to people who do not really deserve it. I am sure that all my hon. Friends will agree that the point has been fully met and the Bill thereby, in yet one other respect, improved by the Opposition.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 29, leave out from "house" to first "the" in line 32 and insert:
unless the house was occupied wholly or partly for business purposes, and a person entitled to the receipts of a business carried on wholly or partly therein held an interest in the house, either on the said thirteenth day of December or at all times during".—[Mr. Powell.]

3.—(PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF UNFIT BUT WELL MAINTAINED HOUSES.)

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 2, line 47, to leave out from beginning to "vary" in page 3, line 1, and to insert:
order made by statutory instrument".
This Amendment, together with that which follows, carries out an undertaking which I gave in Committee to substitute the affirmative for the negative Resolution procedure in regard to orders which will be made by the Minister to vary the multiplier specified in the principal Act for certain payments in respect of well maintained slum houses.

Mr. MacColl: This is the final occasion on which the Bill has been improved by the advice of the Opposition. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's taking the point about having the positive procedure. It is a constitutional point of

some importance. I welcome it and, on behalf of my hon. Friends, I thank the hon. Gentleman for this latest improvement to the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 7, at end insert:
Provided that an order under this subsection shall be of no effect until it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.—[Mr. Powell.]

Title

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in line 3, at the end to add:
and for purposes connected therewith".
This Amendment to the Title is consequential upon the Amendment which has been made in regard to mortgages.

Mr. Mitchison: I say only one word, that even the Title was too tight.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I do not propose to take the time of the House for long, but there are one or two matters to which I ought to call attention, and one in particular on which I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question. We have discussed at some length today and on previous occasions the principle, if indeed it is a principle—let us call it the object—of Clause 1. That is a temporary Clause. It is to operate only for ten years from December, 1955, and it deals with compensation in respect of houses. It is intended to meet a hardship that we all recognise. It is a hardship that resembles the elephant in the respect that it is easy to recognise and difficult to define.
Clause 2 is another matter, and I still feel some uneasiness about it, because it contains permanent provisions the full wisdom of which I still feel somewhat doubtful about; but we had a full explanation of them from the hon. Gentleman in Committee. There certainly is a case for them, and conscious, as we are, of the hardship that it is desired to meet in Clause 1, we should not regard the permanent character of Clause 2 as a sufficient reason for voting against the Bill. We should have liked it to have a temporary character too. But


that point has been discussed for some time.
Clause 3 contains one very important provision. It deals with the case of houses which are unfit—that is to say insanitary houses, in the wording which is used—but are well maintained. I need hardly remind the House that there are at present two provisions for making additional payment to the owners of those houses when they are dealt with by the local authority. One is a provision which is not covered by the Bill, and therefore I say no more than that I believe it to have only a limited application in practice.
The other is a general provision that provides for increased compensation by means of a multiplier, and the multiplier factor which is used to increase the compensation at present is stated in the principal Act, and this Clause gives power to the Minister to vary it. The right hon. Gentleman was asked in the Second Reading debate what action he proposed to take. At the time, perhaps for reasons of consultation—I do not know what they were exactly—he was not able to say very much, and so I am hopeful that the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to say a little more tonight and to give us some indication of what is proposed in this respect.
In principle, we fully see the point. This is really a question of increasing costs of maintenance and so on, and we appreciate that the people who have had to live in these unfit houses and have none the less succeeded in maintaining them in as good order as could be expected in the circumstances are, on the whole, a group of persons whom Parliament before now has tried to help a bit over compensation, and the help for whom should now be brought up to date by some provision of this sort. In this, as in other respects, the reference in the Bill to rateable value, the general assumption that the finances of local authorities will remain in much the same structure, has led me to wonder what we are to hear later about the finances of local authorities. That goes far beyond the subject matter of the Bill, but it just makes me wonder whether anything much will be done in this matter, or whether it will not. I say no more on that.
I have one general comment to make on the Bill. It will not take me long to

make it. We have all of us said during the course of the Bill that it is extremely difficult to do justice in this sort of case; that we are driven to draw lines at some point so that we may deal with a class of persons whom we want to benefit, only to find that we are including among them groups of people we do not want to benefit; that it is a hit and miss business; that the operation of the Bill is still an uncertain matter; and that the most we can say about it is that we think that on balance it will do slightly more good than harm. I would make this general comment. The Bill, it seems to me, illustrates very well the real, essential difficulty of treating house property just as an investment.
There are on one side questions of human requirements and human feelings; and on the other questions of rent, questions of advances by way of mortgage, questions of compensation for property, which have an entirely different character. That relationship between landlord and tenant, a relationship in which all the spiritual value, the moral value, or whatever we may like to call it, the warmth of the matter, as it were, is on one side, while on the other the landlord—I am not assuming he is wicked—is bound in the nature of the case to treat his interest from a purely financial point of view, is not, I feel, one on which we can build permanently or satisfactorily. This Bill helps to bring out the real difficulty of that.
For here we are trying to meet a need, a hardship, if hon. Members prefer, which has a sort of moral foundation, which arose during the war, which has meant unhappiness for people who had to find houses in difficult circumstances. We are trying here to deal with that in terms of money, of compensation, in terms of what the local authority has to pay, in terms of what, to take the case we had just now, is the right way to deal with matters between a lender and a borrower. Our failure to do it shows that the essential relationship is wrong, and that to try to build on it involves confused legislation, and that this piece of legislation in particular suffers fundamentally from the same sort of confusion there is in questions of rent and rent control and the rest.
I say all that, not because on a Bill of these limits and in this form we can


do very much about it, but to make a mental note—and I would ask other hon. Members to make it, too—that the Bill is really another instance of the rather unsatisfactory method of dealing with housing through a landlord-tenant relationship, with supervising local authorities and a supervising Ministry, to which we have been accustomed so long. I say to hon. Members opposite that after the next General Election, when we come back, we may consider more wholesale remedies are necessary than anything that appears in the Bill.
Having said that, and having delivered to somewhat empty benches and unheeding Members opposite a warning of what is coming to them, I would end by saying two things. First, on balance we regard this as a small Bill and an illogical Bill but as rather a good one, which we on this side have, of course, made a very great deal better than it was. Lastly, I say with some reluctance, but I must say so, that the Parliamentary Secretary has done his job quite remarkably well. It was a proper tangle of a Bill, but he has done very well with it. The abuse I shower on him from time to time is abuse of his views and not of his competence.

8.8 p.m.

Dr. King: I shall not detain the House more than a few minutes. This Bill is a novel departure from previous housing legislation, but a justifiable one, and as one of the hon. Members who last year put down a Motion urging the Government to introduce some such Measure I want to congratulate the Government on the Bill as far as it goes. The Parliamentary Secretary has shown his usual consummate ability in piloting the Bill through, and I congratulate him on this and on his wisdom in accepting some very useful Amendments from the Opposition. Had he accepted others which the Opposition proposed this would have been a much better Bill.
However, even when the Bill becomes law there will be a considerable amount of hardship among owner-occupiers. In a debate a little earlier today my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) rightly reminded the House that the Bill will benefit only one group of owner-occupiers, only the owner-occupiers who purchased property after September, 1939.
I should be out of order if I discussed the hardships of owner-occupiers before that date. I would only say that they are suffering from a bitter sense of having been unjustly treated. Just how much hardship will continue to be suffered by the group which by the Bill benefits depends, first, upon the generous interpretation of their responsibilities by local authorities. There are some legislative ways in which local authorities can help dispossessed owner-occupiers, and upon the degree of generosity with which local authorities interpret those powers will depend the amelioration of the position of owner-occupiers.
Then there is the question of the value which valuation officers will place upon these properties under the terms of the Bill, as amended on this point quite usefully by the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon. This is quite a vague subject; nobody knows very much about it. But the amount of compensation which the valuation officer awards to the dispossessed owner-occupier will be of key importance. I do not know whether the Minister has any power to give a lead to valuation officers in this matter. The whole question still seems to be very vague. It is difficult to see what value can be put upon a house which is to be pulled down. If the Minister can give any lead, however, I ask him to do so in the spirit which has guided our deliberations through all the stages of the Bill, and to ensure that the interpretation of valuation officers will be as generous as possible when considering the substandard property of owner-occupiers.
Whether or not he can do that, I do not know, but there is one thing which he certainly can do. Under the Bill he is empowered to introduce regulations varying the amount given to an owner-occupier because he has maintained his house well. Generally speaking, under the old law he was to receive three times the rateable value. The Minister has undertaken to introduce regulations which, one gathers, will alter that multiplier from three to a greater figure. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to convey to his right hon. Friend the necessity, when considering those regulations, to bear in mind the hardships suffered in spite of whatever compensation owner-occupiers may receive by way of the valuation of their property. The Minister


can alleviate the position of all dispossessed owner-occupiers to some extent by increasing the multiplier in the case of those owner-occupiers—and I believe it is the majority—who have devoted themselves to keeping their little properties in very good condition. I urge him to do so.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Powell: With the leave of the House, I should like briefly to reply to some of the points which have been raised. At earlier stages we have discussed the essential difference between the owner-occupier who purchased his house before the war, who has occupied it for 17 years or more, and also bought it in quite a different set of circumstances, and the owner-occupier whose position will be met by Clause 1. I will not go into that question again. The well-maintained payment, as the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) recognises, will be a help to many owner-occupiers who bought their houses before 1939 and who therefore qualify under Clause 3 but not under Clause 1.
The hon. Member referred to future problems of valuation. While it would certainly be improper for the Minister to give any direction upon these matters, a very careful investigation has been made of the possibility of arriving at reasonable valuations of these properties, and I am assured that in the ordinary course of valuation there should not be any difficulty in assessing a value for these properties under the terms of the Bill as it stands amended.
I now turn to the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), whom I thank very much for his generous reference to me. Like the hon. and learned Gentleman I shall not go at any length into the question whether the compensation for business interests should or should not have been permanent. I will only say that even after the great mass of the slum problem has been dealt with, there must be over the years a deterioration of individual properties into a state in which they become ripe for demolition orders. It would surely be wrong then that premises which are properly occupied otherwise than for habitation should be dealt with under the penal provisions which were designed to apply to the habitation of uninhabitable houses.
On Clause 3, the hon. and learned Member asked me a question of which

he gave me notice during the Committee stage. Section 42 (2, b) of the principal Act which, by Clause 3 of the Bill, the Minister can amend by order in certain respects, uses the rateable value of these houses as a yardstick of the reasonable cost of keeping them in repair. That was the purpose for which our legislative ancestors used rateable value in that paragraph. They said that an owner-occupier might well have to spend, over five years, three times the net rateable value of a house in order to keep such a house as this in a well-maintained condition. They went on to say that, after making allowances for what he would get from a tenant out of the restricted rent, a landlord would probably have to spend one and a half times that rateable value out of his own pocket in order to keep the property in reasonable repair. Thus they were using rateable value in 1936 as a yardstick of building costs in 1936.
The rateable values of the houses with which we are here concerned have remained virtually unchanged in the new valuation lists, and the rents from which the landlords derive an element in respect of maintenance are also unchanged since 1936 by virtue of the Rent Restrictions Acts. But that of which rateable value was intended to provide a measure—the cost of building—has changed enormously. So it is right to compare the average of building costs over the last five years with the average of building costs which our predecessors were looking at twenty years ago. Subject· to consultations which he still has to have with the interests concerned, my right hon. Friend has in mind the figure of three times, as representing very fairly and generally the changed relationship between the yardstick and that which it is intended to measure. In other words, subject to what I have said, he has it in mind to multiply by three the multipliers of one and a half and three which appear in Section 42 (2, b) of the principal Act.

Mr. Mitchisonon: That is on the assumption that the rents remain the same, is it not? May we take it that this proportion will stay unless and until any change is made in rent control?

Mr. Powell: All sorts of things may change over the years while Clause 3 remains in force. We may nurture the hope that even building costs may change.


It is for that reason that the adjustment is proposed to be made by this Clause by way of order rather than by writing a figure into the Bill and thus necessitating subsequent legislation if any of the factors were to alter.
The hon. and learned Member went into an ideological by-way which I felt was not very relevant to the Bill—the question whether house property should be treated merely as an investment. The main purpose of the Bill, however, is to remedy a hardship which falls upon owner occupiers—so there was a considerable measure of irrelevance in that discussion upon which I will not follow the hon. and learned Member. He did grudgingly say that the Bill would do slightly more good than harm. I believe that those who will be assisted in different ways by the three operative Clauses of this Bill will feel that it does a great deal more good than harm. But grudging as was that admission from the Opposition Front Bench, I must thank hon. Members opposite as well as my hon. Friends for the contributions they have made to the undoubted improvements in the Bill. However less than graciously credit was taken for some of these changes, they were all desirable, and in some cases necessary, changes; and it would be a pity if Governments did not feel themselves free to profit by whatever advice they get during every stage in the passage of a Bill. And so we leave this Measure, to do that considerably greater good than harm, which I feel will be its effect.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

DEATH PENALTY (ABOLITION) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 16th May].

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

1.—(ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY.)

Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 16, to leave out subsection (3)—[Major Anstruther-Gray].

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out, to the second "the" in line 16, stand part of the Clause:—

8.21 p.m.

Sir Thomas Moore: I believe that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends were puzled and a little critical at my action in carrying on the debate about Scotland when last we were discussing this Bill in Committee. In fairness to myself I think that I should give my reasons.
First, I felt convinced that in any event we could not finish the Committee stage of the Bill before the agreed hour of midnight; and, secondly, that the case for excluding Scotland from the scope of the Bill had at that time not been properly examined. Therefore, in the few minutes during which I expect to occupy the attention of the Committee, I propose slightly to elaborate the remarks and arguments so reasonably and yet so persuasively advanced by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Major Anstruther-Gray).
A little of what I am about to say will be known to hon. Members from Scotland, but I am now speaking to the great number of hon. Members who are English—or at least I shall be speaking to them when they have entered the Chamber—and who may not be cognisant of our peculiar Scottish laws in respect of murder. The English are a race for whom we have a high regard. They have many admirable qualities and are the first to recognise a mistake when it is pointed out to them in a genuine attempt to educate them into a more clarified view of the situation. It is to them, therefore, that I primarily address these remarks. I am hoping that, as they


come into the Chamber. I shall not have to repeat my remarks, because it may be too late if they read them in HANSARD tomorrow.
In Scotland, there has been evolved a penal system, or criminal code—or whatever is the correct term to apply to it—which is both lenient and deterrent. It is lenient in its analysis of murder and deterrent in its punishment for murder. The result is that in Scotland we are much more humane in judging the reasons for murder, yet, at the same time, we retain the supreme penalty when it appears proper and when the conscience of the public demands it. That this system has worked well is, I believe, obvious; in any case, I will show that to be true.
There are some rather interesting deductions to be drawn from the application of the system. As we heard from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian, the death penalty was imposed, but not applied, in 11 cases during the seventeen years ending in 1945—the year is important. Two convictions were quashed on appeal and the remainder were commuted to life imprisonment. In other words, there were no actual hangings during those seventeen years. Then came the end of the war in which, inevitably, there were no restraints on killing. While that is obvious and natural in war-time, it is a state of affairs which cannot properly be accepted or tolerated in peacetime.
Now we find an interesting corollary to my argument. It is that during the year after the war, 1946, the supreme punishment had again to be applied. During that year the death penalty was actually carried out on three occasions. The years have passed since then, and, owing to the settling of social and economic conditions, the deterrent of death has not been needed to any great extent. In fact, it has not been needed at all in the last few years. The deduction from that is obvious. Our system works well. We have devised a method of dealing with the crime of murder which is humane and just. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian said, let us leave well alone and let us get on with it.
8.30 p.m.
I must make a few further remarks about the speech which was made at the last meeting of this Committee by my

right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. He is not in his place at the moment. He told me that he could not be here because of another official engagement, so I hope that my words will be passed on to him by those whom I see sitting on the Government Front Bench.
I say, with great respect for my right hon. Friend and with considerable understanding of his attitude, that I wonder whether his speech was quite logical. We have heard that the Government do not like the Bill. The Home Secretary has made that very clear on several occasions. The Secretary of State for Scotland does not want the Bill, as he himself explained very fully to us on a previous occasion.
The people of Scotland, who are so badly represented by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, do not want the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh") I have taken he trouble during the past ten days to ascertain, so far as I could, the opinion of the man and woman in the street in Scotland, and I am convinced from my investigations that the people of Scotland do not want the Bill. Furthermore, I understand that a number of churches in Scotland have expressed a similar opinion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] In spite of these assertions, which everyone in the Committee believes to be true, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland advises us to accept the Bill for Scotland.
Surely there is something very illogical in the position that my right hon. Friend has taken up. On a previous occasion, and in defence of this explanation, my right hon. Friend said that the Government believed it would not be wise to enact a law which would enforce the death penalty in Scotland for a crime which, if committed in England, would not be so punishable. I then pointed out that there was a later Amendment to exclude Northern Ireland from the scope of the Bill, and I understand that that Amendment has been accepted by the promoters of the Bill.
I asked my right hon. Friend why Scotland should be treated differently, and my right hon. Friend replied that Northern Ireland—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: May I explain to the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) why, in the


opinion of the promoters of the Bill, the cases of Scotland and Northern Ireland are different?

Sir T. Moore: The hon. Member is anticipating my speech.

Mr. Silverman: The difference is that Northern Ireland has a Parliament of its own—

Sir T. Moore: I was about to say that—

Mr. Silverman: While Scotland, with the consent of the hon. Baronet—[An HON. MEMBER: "He is not a Baronet "]—has not.

Sir T. Moore: The hon. Member must yet learn, even after his long experience in this Chamber, that other hon. Members like to make their own speeches, and have the intelligence to consider their own remarks and arguments, without the assistance of the hon. Gentleman.
We will now come back to the point about which I was speaking when the hon. Gentleman, without any justification, interrupted me. I asked my right hon. Friend, "Why should Scotland be treated differently from Northern Ireland?" To this the Secretary of State for Scotland replied that Northern Ireland had to be treated differently, as it had a different constitution. I can only say that many misguided people in Scotland will be reinforced in their view that Scotland should have a form of self-government that would put them in that comfortable position of Northern Ireland of being able to decide these vital matters for themselves.
Before allowing this Amendment to be carried, the Government should carefully ponder upon the effect that it must inevitably have. Not everyone appreciates the difficulty in which the Government have been placed. We hear that it would be difficult to have two different penalties applied to the same crime within ten miles south and north of the Border. Some people have very strong views about this matter and will be inclined to say, "Why cannot we be allowed to give expression to our own feelings and to decide this matter for ourselves when it affects the life and death of every man, woman and child in Scotland?"
That is the attitude they are taking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Some hon. Members know nothing about Scotland. I think they might leave this question to more vocal hon. Members to express their views.
In our last debate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Sir A. Gomme-Duncan), who, I am sorry to say, is not in his place today, used the plea that the Secretary of State should have second thoughts on this matter in view of the experience which he must and would gain in regard to the feelings of people in Scotland. I think that if my right hon. Friend were here tonight he probably would have those second thoughts and find himself eventually in the Lobby with those of us, Scottish, Welsh and English Members alike, who believe that Scotland should be left to carry on the system she has evolved and which she has found is suited to her character, her outlook and her traditions.
For that reason, I give my warm support to this Amendment and I hope it will be supported in the Lobby by all those who honestly believe that there is strength and justice in our case.

Mr. A. Woodburn: It would be a great mistake if the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) were taken in any way as speaking for Scotland or the Scottish people. I think I can claim to know as much about the mind of the Scottish people as any of my colleagues from Scotland.
In my experience, and as far as my knowledge goes, Scotland has always been most reluctant, either in the form of juries, or in the form of judges, or in the form of counsel, to find any reason why a person should be hanged. The hon. Member for Ayr himself pointed out that for nearly eighteen years Scotland did not have one execution. He did not also point out that during all that period there was not the slightest protest from the public that people were not being hanged. I quite agree that when certain crimes take place public indignation is aroused and there may be a feeling of revenge, retaliation, or retribution on the part of the public, but by the time the trial comes never, in my recollection. has the public been


enthusiastic for carrying out in cold blood the ultimate penalty of the law.
I have not come to a decision easily on this question. When I was Secretary of State, just after the war, there were very difficult circumstances in Britain. As the hon. Member for Ayr said, people had come back from the war and many young persons had grown up with the idea that weapons were an auxiliary of juvenile crime. There was a form of gang warfare developing which necessarily had to be dealt with by almost similar means.
It would have been impossible to have left policemen entirely at the mercy of gang warfare. If it ever developed they would have to have been able to protect themselves. Nobody is in any doubt about that, but this Bill does not prevent that. In such cases where they have to face armed gangsters, the police are armed, and, presumably, in such cases they will still be armed, even after this Bill passes.
Whatever may be the merits of the main argument, the Royal Commission which was appointed by the Government of which I was a member went into the matter very carefully. I must say that I cannot find any way out of the logic of its conclusions. They were that, even if it were possible to find some way of getting definitions of murder such as we have in Scotland, or of reducing the numbers to the figures to which we have reduced them in Scotland, the resulting number becomes so infinitesimal that it is not justifiable in any commonsense view to retain capital punishment for what remains.
I believe that there is no argument against that. Indeed, in Scotland, it was proved that though capital punishment was practically abolished in those eighteen years, the number of murders did not increase. Curiously enough, I do not take the view that capital punishment is not a deterrent. I think that if any punishment is a deterrent, surely capital punishment must be a deterrent, but the point is that the abolition of a deterrent does not provide any stimulation or provocation for people to commit murder for the fun of it. It is not, therefore, logical to say that the mere fact that we abolish the deterrent will automatically provoke people to commit murder. The facts revealed in every country the statistics of

which the Royal Commission examined proved that it does not provoke people to commit more murders.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman is, therefore, asking that in Scotland, where he boasts that we have been more humane towards murderers and assassins up to now, instead of being more humane, we should be less humane than in England and Wales. I am quite sure that he would not expect the Scottish people to be more severe in their punishments than the people south of the Border. So far as I know, the judges and the legal profession in Scotland are almost unanimously against the death penalty. Certainly, the younger ones are. There may be some of the veterans who take a different view, but I should say that the great majority of the younger ones are against the death penalty.
Moreover, when we were in office, we examined the question whether we could get some sort of definition that would deal with the kind of person for whom there were no mitigating circumstances. No lawyers whom we could find ever discovered any method by which we could get a definition sufficiently clear as not to leave a tremendous responsibility either upon the judges or on the juries.

Sir T. Moore: The people of Scotland found that, too. They have discovered a method of dealing with it, have they not, as I tried to point out?

Mr. Woodburn: If we ask the legal profession, we are told that they have found a method by which sympathy can be exercised and leniency shown without any strict legal definition. In other words, it is left to the common sense of juries, and what has happened in every case, by the common sense of the juries and the judges, is that wherever they could find an excuse for not imposing the capital sentence, they have done so. Therefore, that contradicts entirely the hon. Gentleman's assertion that the Scottish people want to hang all murderers, or anything of that kind.
It is admitted that, as a deterrent, Scotland put it on the shelf, and it was there on the shelf to be brought down if necessary. All that is happening with this Bill is that it is being put further back on the shelf, or, rather, is being put into a cupboard and locked away. If Parliament ever finds it necessary to reverse its


decision, automatically the Measure will be repealed, and it will come back. That could be done in the matter of a few days, without any of the dreadful circumstances anticipated by those who fear this Bill. On the evidence of the Royal Commission, that is not likely to take place.
In my view, and even since I changed my view, the attitude of the public of Scotland has greatly changed, though maybe I am saying that because I myself have changed my own mind. From the actual inquiries which I have made, it appears that large numbers of people now take the view that the time has come when this experiment should be tried. I think myself that there is no risk, because, after all, there have been no capital sentences in Scotland in recent days, and I cannot see that there is any greater risk in future than there was in Scotland in suspending it for those eighteen years. If it is suspended by Parliament for the whole of Great Britain, events will show whether there is any danger. If there is sufficient danger to justify hon. Members asking Parliament to review its opinion, Parliament can do so.
8.45 p.m.
Every reform which has been passed has been passed against the fears of people that it would bring great disasters. Whether it was a question of taking women out of the mines or preventing children from acting as chimney sweeps—all these reforms were opposed because people feared they would bring economic ruin or disaster to the country. We must admit that these fears were proved groundless.
I have come to the conviction that the time has arrived when we ought to abolish this penalty. In Scotland, on average there has been one hanging every two-and-a-half years over the last thirty years. The Royal Commission pointed out that if we exempt those whom everyone wants to exempt from capital punishment, the number remaining will be infinitesimal. We are, therefore, retaining this horrible retribution, which everybody abhors, for the sake of one or two murders.
I have had to deal with one or two of these people and, looking back, I must say that I do not think the country would have been ruined had their lives been spared. It is true that the Secretary of

State for Scotland and the Home Secretary at that time could find no mitigating circumstances to allow the law to be set aside, but I cannot think of a case in which, had the court exercised the leniency it was able to exercise in other cases, the public would have suffered any disquiet or there would have been any disaster to the country.
I therefore hope that the House will not accede to the hon. Member's arguments and I hope that he himself will not pursue this matter as if it were a football match in which he has to beat his opponents. This is a matter in which we are trying to make some progress in a civilised way towards improving our legal system.
I think that people's conduct has steadily grown better and better. The dangers of the war have passed, and I believe that the standard of conduct has reached a stage at which we can dispense with this type of punishment and be ready to go forward, as the Church of Scotland says, towards the redemption of the people rather than their extinction.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The right hon. Member for East Stirling-shire (Mr. Woodburn) has based his argument on the theme that Scotland is reluctant to hang, and I can think of no one in Scotland who would not be moved by the act of hanging. But those who support the Amendment recall only too clearly many brutal and sickening murders of our time. I support the Amendment because I believe that Scotland neither wants nor needs the abolition of the death penalty.
I should like to say at the start that I think those who support the Amendment find themselves in the midst of two conflicting views in the Committee. On the one hand there are hon. Members, mostly on the benches opposite, who support the system of nationalisation, and therefore it is not surprising to us that they should want Scotland to be dragged at England's heels. On the other hand, I find many of my English colleagues disinclined to support the Amendment for very different reasons—because they have a certain impatience with Scottish ways, which is particularly evident on Tuesdays when we have Scottish Questions. I only hope that my English colleagues will not vote against the Amendment on the grounds rather oddly given by an English colleague of mine who said he would not


support the Amendment because he did not want Scotland to have privileges other than those of England and Wales.
I feel that there might well be considerable support for this Amendment if there really were a free vote on this issue. I do question whether there is a free vote. [interruption.] When the Secretary of State for Scotland spoke previously on this Amendment, he expressed his own and the Government's sympathy with the logic of our argument but said that he could not support it by his vote. Therefore, I only trust that Ministers will not have been asked to abstain on this issue but that they will be allowed, as they have been on every other occasion so far, to vote as they will on a Private Member's Bill.
Both the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire and the Secretary of State denied this Amendment. The Secretary of State said that the degree of moral guilt was identical on both sides of the Border. While that is true, the crime of murder is treated differently on the two sides of the Border. Differences in the law relating to murder have already been quoted by my two hon. Friends who moved and supported the Amendment on the last occasion. They said that the four main differences are that in Scotland there is the law of diminished responsibility; that there is no law of constructive malice; that suicide or attempted suicide is not a criminal offence in Scotland, and that the law relating to prosecution is more flexible. The result is to achieve a state which, I submit to the Committee, meets the desires of a great number of my hon. Friends who do not wish to support the extreme view held by either side.
Lord Cooper, former Lord Justice General of Scotland, has said that in Scotland:
We have practically now reached the position where only intentional killing is murder.
The degree of moral guilt, therefore, is treated differently north of the Border and, therefore, Scottish law already justifies different penalties for the same crime.
One does understand the Government's position, but if they really feel that they cannot see a different system north and south of the Border, I suggest that they should allow Government time for a Scottish Member to introduce a Private Member's Bill of this nature.

Mr. Woodburn: I gather that the argument of the hon. Lady is that Scotland up till now has had a far better system than have England and Wales. I agree with that. Presumably, therefore, England and Wales are trying to improve themselves in order at least to reach our high standard. That being so, I do not understand how the hon. Lady can describe that as trailing Scotland at England's tail. England is trying to reach Scotland's standard and will now pass it. Why should we stay behind if England tries to pass that standard?

Lady Tweedsmuir: It is interesting to find the right hon. Gentleman, a former Secretary of State for Scotland, so anxious that the whole of the Scottish law system should be disregarded and that, in this Bill, which is primarily related to England and Wales, the whole Scottish system should be forgotten. I hope that his constituents will duly remember that at the next Election.
If the Government really do feel themselves in a difficult position, I think they should give Government time for a Scottish Member to introduce a Private Member's Bill relating solely to Scotland. I say this because there have been, and are now, a very great many precedents for Scotland having her own legislation on matters of major importance. I put it to the Joint Under-Secretary of State, in the absence of my right hon. Friend, that this should be considered between now and the Report stage, even if it does involve another Bill being put before the Scottish Grand Committee. We should then have the chance to test out purely Scottish opinion. It is true that each Member can express only his or her view as to what is the state of public opinion. It is not our practice here to have a referendum on this question, as is going to be the case in New Zealand, where, incidentally, there was a sharp rise in the murder rate after abolition and the capital sentence was reintroduced.
I am myself not one who usually quotes the Gallup poll, but I think those who do quote the Gallup poll when it is in their favour should equally quote it when it is against them. I have not myself seen any Gallup poll in this country on the question of public opinion on the death penalty which has shown a majority support in favour of abolition. Nor have


I yet heard any hon. Member who supports abolition claim that either he or she is in tune with public opinion. Hon. Members, in fact, have no mandate from the people to abolish an accepted safeguard for the law-abiding people of this country.
The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire said that it all comes back to the central question whether capital punishment is a deterrent. I thought he was frank enough, but also illogical enough, to say that, while he accepted that the death penalty is a deterrent, nevertheless he could not see why it should not be abolished. I thought that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), who I do not see in his place at the moment, but who spoke on the last occasion, had some logic in his argument, because he sought to prove by Scots figures that the death penalty was not a deterrent, in that the highest number of murders occurred at the time when there were the lowest number of reprieves.
To take the other side of the story, when after seventeen years when all convicted murderers were reprieved there were three executions in 1946, the Royal Commission said:
Police witnesses were unanimously of the opinion that these three executions had a considerable effect on criminals in the City of Glasgow.
That evidence was supported by that given by Lord Cooper which was quoted in the last debate by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan).
I think that, taking these two sides of the question, we must admit once again that the statistics and evidence before the Royal Commission on the subject of the deterrent are so conflicting that we have to make up our own minds here in this Committee what action should be taken. Therefore, I submit to the Committee that since this Bill first started its Committee stage, something very important has happened.
This Committee has already acceded, on one Amendment, the principle that capital punishment can be a deterrent. This Committee has shown by votes in the Lobby that doubt exists, and I submit, therefore, that because doubt exists that is an added reason why it should not be

assumed that what is good for England and Wales is automatically right for Scotland.
Indeed, with respect to my English colleagues, I suggest that much benefit would accrue if the law in England and Wales were brought into line with that in Scotland, because we would then have reached the stage all over the country whereby murder by normal human beings only is punishable by death—although what is a normal human being is open to question. We are all said to be normal here, but I sometimes believe that the public think us a bit queer at times.
If this Amendment is not accepted, I believe that the majority of public opinion in Scotland will invoke once again the old Scots prayer which says:
God bless the Houses of Parliament and over-rule their deliberations—for the people's good".

9.0 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I am very glad to have an opportunity of speaking on this Bill. I would like to inform the House that in 1948 on the Criminal Justice Bill I voted for the retention of the death penalty. My reason for so doing was based very much upon my experience in Scotland. In Scotland we had the law of diminished responsibility. We had a disregard for the M'Naghten Rules. In Scotland we paid very great heed to our juries' recommendations to mercy, and in Scotland we had eighteen years without a hanging. At the same time—if it were a deterrent —we had on the Statute Book the provision for the death penalty. I thought we got the best of both worlds.
I have followed this matter almost case by case since then, because I had great qualms of conscience about my vote on that occasion. I felt that my vote was anti-Christian, that it was an Old Testament vote and not a New Testament vote. When I feel like that, I keep examining the question. I am very glad now to redeem my vote of the past, and I am very sorry to hear the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) say that Scotland neither wants nor needs the abolition of the death penalty.
The hon. Lady has only just come from the Assembly. She was there and she was on that occasion more than the charming ornament she usually is when she appears anywhere; she was taking


an active part in the deliberations of the great Assembly of 3,000 clergymen of the Church of Scotland. She was one of the speakers. Yet she comes to this Committee and says that Scotland neither wants nor needs abolition of the death penalty. For whom is she speaking—the Church of Scotland or the Tory Party?

Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray: Is the hon. Lady aware of the views of the Free Church of Scotland about the death penalty? In fact, the Free Church sent a letter, from the Public Questions Committee, to say that they are disturbed at the progress in the House of Commons of a Private Member's Bill for the abolition or suspension of capital punishment. They urge the Government—

Mr. John Rankin: This is a speech.

Major Anstruther-Gray: I am speaking to the hon. Lady the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann). She has been in the House a long time, and she has been good enough to allow me to intervene.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The intervention must not be too long.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Lady has given way, but the intervention now is amounting to an argument

Lady Tweedsmuir: rose—

Mrs. Mann: I am not giving way.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. If the hon. Lady in possession of the Committee does not give way, then the noble Lady cannot intervene.

Lady Tweedsmuir: On a point of order. May I not intervene, Sir Rhys, even though I was named by the hon. Lady?

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Lady does not give way, that is still true. The noble Lady has another opportunity in Committee.

Major Anstruther-Gray: rose—

Mrs. Mann: I cannot take on two at a time. I will deal with the hon. and gallant Member whose opening remarks

were completely out of order. He asked if I knew what the Free Church had said.

Major Anstruther-Gray: On a point of order. The hon. Lady has said that my opening remarks were out of order. Sir Rhys, with all respect, you did not point that out to the Committee.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Lady might leave that to me.

Mrs. Mann: I was not referring to the rules of the House when I said "out of order" The hon. and gallant Member asked if I knew what was the attitude of the Free Church, and he then proceeded to read at length. I am a member of the Free Church of Scotland and he actually was referring to the Wee Free Church. Because it is rightly or probably wrongly held in very much contempt, he refused to give the accurate definition and to say that it was the Wee Free Church of Scotland he was quoting.

Lady Tweedsmuir: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: I have already pointed out to the noble Lady that if the hon. Lady in possession of the Committee will not give way, she must not intervene.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The hon. Lady has given way.

Mrs. Mann: I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) cannot take it. May I be allowed to get on with my speech? If I give way to the noble Lady, I must give way to three or four. Probably she wants me to give way because she is afraid of what is coming.
I did say that the noble Lady was at this gathering of the Church Assembly of Scotland, and I wondered—I will allow the noble Lady to intervene after I have finished with her—if she saw what had happened yesterday at the Church Assembly, when there was an addendum, moved by the Reverend R. J. Wilson, asking the Assembly to
believe it to be the duty of the State to put to death some murderers.
That was before the entire Church of Scotland. In moving the rejection, the Very Reverend Dr. Charles L. Warr said:
I cannot see personally how there can be any room for compromise like this between the abolitionists and the retentionists. The death


penalty is right or it is wrong; for the Christian, in my view, it is a complete repudiation of the redemptive purpose of the Gospel, a denial of the sanctity of human personality, and a denial of the infinite value of the human soul in the sight of its Maker.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I thank the hon. Lady for at last giving way. May I say to her, first, for the purpose of accuracy, that I realise that she is a member of the Wee Free Church, but I thought that she would not like it to be on record in HANSARD that I attended and spoke at one of the main Assembly meetings of the Church of Scotland, because she will be aware that that is an all-male Assembly and I would have no right to speak there. I did, in fact, address a gathering connected with the Women's Mission, which is quite different.
Secondly, regarding the resolution which the hon. Lady has put before the Committee as having been debated in the Assembly—

Mrs. Mann: I do not think—

Hon. Members: Order.

The Deputy-Chairman: The noble Lady is making a personal explanation. [An HON. MEMBER: "She has finished."] If the personal explanation is completed, the object of the intervention has ended.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The hon. Lady gave way —

Mrs. Mann: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: If the noble Lady wants to enter upon an argument, she will have an opportunity probably later.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I understand that the hon. Lady had given way for the express purpose of my replying to her remark about the resolution before the Assembly. I took advantage to give a personal explanation also, but the hon. Lady gave way so that I might reply to her.

The Deputy-Chairman: The object of art intervention always is either to make clear an ambiguity or to make a personal explanation. The noble Lady has made the personal explanation. The next part, I understand, is argument.

Mrs. Mann: It should be clearly understood that the Assembly was composed

of clergymen. Whilst there may be two or, at most, three women in Scotland who are members of the clergy, I thought it would be understood that I did not for one moment flatter the hon. Lady in that she got intervening in that Assembly. She took part in the deliberations during the week in certain of the functions. That is what I hoped I had made clear. Probably to that end it serves the noble Lady's purpose, because it detracts from very noble words uttered yesterday in the Assembly. The addendum that was put before the Assembly was defeated heavily. Only a dozen members voted for it.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Out of 3,000.

Mrs. Mann: In seconding Dr. Warr, the Rev. Ian Gray, of Perth, described hanging as
a barbaric practice and an insult to human dignity
and said:
We cannot carry out capital punishment because it is taking away the possibility of changing a human.
I am quite certain that we are all familiar with the words
And while the lamp holds out to burn The vilest sinner may return.
Scotland has always been in advance of England in this respect. I have already mentioned that a strong recommendation by a jury in Scotland inevitably meant a reprieve. Someone will now remind me of one case when it did not so mean a reprieve, but that will prove to be the one exception. We learn that when the Royal Commission reported on this subject and suggested that a jury's recommendation to mercy might be given some heed, it had been received with indignation. Yet who with any experience of court life would not pay very strong attention to those who sit throughout the whole proceedings, who hear the case, who see the prisoner, who can note his demeanour and who hear and see much more than any newspaper perhaps has space for or can publish, even if it has the desire?
9.15 p.m.
In Scotland, when we find ourselves in disagreement with the findings of a judge or a sheriff, when we are wise, we conclude, "He was in court, and we were not." It makes all the difference. I speak as a magistrate, and I say it makes all the difference whether one was not in court.


or whether one was in court throughout the proceedings, and able to see every facet and every angle of the case. Therefore, in Scotland we give heed to a jury's recommendation to mercy. I have noticed that in England such recommendations to mercy have time and again been ridden over roughshod, and I have been shocked.
In Scotland we have observed the law of diminished responsibility. Now what are we promised? That even if the Bill is rejected England may come into line with Scotland and allow the defence of diminished responsibility and thus avert hanging. England ought to be ashamed of herself that in all these years she has not given heed to diminished responsibility. It is all very well parrot-like to echo the phrase about being tied to the heels of England. I notice that some people like it when it suits them but not when it does not suit them. In Scotland we are very much more advanced. An Amendment like this would pull us back. Usually we go on from height to height, and that is what I should like to see us continuing to do, and I should like to see us in Scotland now go the whole way in stopping hanging.
As things are, a dreadful onus is placed on one man. The responsibility for making a decision about a murderer rests on one man. We have of late seen that one man change his mind. This could be true at any time of any Home Secretary, but we in this Chamber have heard the Home Secretary declare that on the very day before a murderer was to be hanged further information came to hand and in consequence the Home Secretary reprieved the criminal at the eleventh hour. Only the week before he had refused to reprieve him. One cannot help wondering at the possibility of that information coming a day late. One cannot help wondering whether further information has arrived after a hanging.
There was a time when it was thought murderesses should hang, but the hanging of Ruth Ellis shocked the whole nation, and not only because she was a woman, but because we have regard to special causes of emotional stress. The judiciary recognises the special position of pregnant women, and gives special heed to the condition of women for a time, nine months or a year, after pregnancy, and that because of the emotional conflict to which women are subject at that time. There have been cases, and

the case of Ruth Ellis was one, in which I might have said, "There, but for the grace of God, go I." Quite a number of women could have said so, too.
Then there was the Evans case. There have been so many cases dependent not on the court decision but on the decision of one man. I know that the holder of the office of Home Secretary changes from time to time, but I think it wrong that he should have such a terrific responsibility on his shoulders. I sympathise with any Home Secretary, because it is a terrific responsibility of which he alone knows. I want Scotland to follow England in this Bill. I want us to wipe this stain off the Statute Book.

Sir Roland Jennings: Would the hon. Lady amend that speech if she had had a child of her own murdered? I am perfectly certain that she would not have made it. It is absolute nonsense.

Mrs. Mann: I have already lost a child in very tragic circumstances.

Sir R. Jennings: Not murder.

Mrs. Mann: My reply is that it would not bring back my child for me to want to have vengeance by hanging a man.

The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Rees-Davies.

Hon. Members: What does he know about Scotland?

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I will answer that question in the course of my speech.
I rise to take part in this debate because it is, curiously enough, the one with which I have been most closely concerned. 1n February, 1955, I put up proposals, in a letter to The Times and, thereafter, to the Home Secretary, inviting the Government to amend the law of murder and to bring it into conformity with the law of Scotland. I had from the Lord Advocate the greatest possible assistance and guidance.
In giving attention to this subject, the Committee will remember that when we produced what later became known as the Heald committee's report on the reform of the law of murder there was contained in it to a large extent recommendations as to the reform of the law of murder to bring it into conformity with the law in Scotland. That is the answer


to the interjection of those who asked me why I, as an Irish-Welshman representing a Kent constituency in England, rose to speak on Scottish law—and I am not a Scottish lawyer.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman would not have been here if he were. They do not elect them in Scotland.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Having been very closely associated with the study of this topic—[Interruption.] I wonder whether this sort of "wee free" debate might cease, so that I can get on with what I want to say.
It is my sincere belief that even if this Bill were to reach the Statute Book to create abolition for England and Wales, none the less out of the logic of the argument, which I hope I can put before the Committee, it should not include Scotland. Let me say why. I entirely concede that in most legislation England, Wales and Scotland should go hand in hand together and that in the ordinary course of events the legislation which applies to one applies to the other; but in the case of the law of murder the circumstances are utterly different, as anyone with the real knowledge of the law and its working will know.
First, there are fundamental differences in all the principles involved, and it is by taking these principles collectively that we see that the law of Scotland is so different from the English law of murder that the penalty in itself might well be different. We start in page 278, with Recommendation No. 40 of the Royal Commission's recommendations. There it says:
The scope of the law of murder in Scotland is satisfactory and no amendment is needed.
That is a remarkable statement. It is made by the Royal Commission after a profound study of the facts, and applies to no other country in the world. In fact, Scotland has a lower murder rate than any other country. It is 2·5 per cent. per 100,000 of the population, which is abnormally low. At one time the murder rate for England was twice that figure.
There is a very good reason why the murder rate in Scotland is lower, and why there has been no call for the abolition of the death penalty there I am sure that one thing is quite clear and can

be confirmed by the Lord Advocate, namely, that in Scotland in recent years there has been no substantial hue and cry for the abolition of the death penalty. Therefore, for Scotland, there is no case, in that no Howard League or other great propaganda has been put out. I have been told by the Scottish Home Department that that is a fact. There is no propaganda call for this Bill in Scotland.
Furthermore, in Scotland there has been no cause célèbre during the last twenty years which has focused the attention of the public upon the necessity for abolishing the death penalty. We must face realities in matters of legislation. The House does not sit to pass legislation where there is no public demand. There is a public demand in England. Whether or not it is a majority demand, there is undoubtedly a very strong one. But there is none in Scotland. The reason is that the laws of the two countries are utterly dissimilar. It has been the failure of this Government, the previous Government, and, in fact, all Governments, to recognise the very satisfactory law of Scotland which has led the House into the impasse in which it now finds itself.

Mr. Woodburn: I agree that if all the law of England were the same as that of Scotland the agitation for the Bill would naturally not have been so great, but in distinguishing between the law of Scotland and that of England is not the hon. Gentleman dealing with irrelevancies? The differences between the two sets of law are antecedent to the conviction for murder. After the conviction for murder the law of Scotland and of England is exactly the same, namely, the death penalty. The Bill deals only with what happens after a conviction for murder and not before. The differences exist as regards the trial and the jury, but there is no difference in the penalty. That remains the same in England and in Scotland.

Mr. Rees-Davies: If the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough not to anticipate my speech he will see exactly how the argument unfolds in regard to those who have to deal with the law of murder. The right hon. Gentleman is, in fact, anticipating the whole burden of my argument. I am saying that the law of Scotland has been stated to be satisfactory.
The second relevant fact which we have to consider is in what respect the law is different. In page 276 of its Report the Royal Commission states that the Scottish laws of insanity and of responsibility require no change, but the English laws in both respects do require to be changed. Furthermore, in Scotland there is—as has already been indicated by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) in her admirable and extremely accurate analysis of the facts—no offence in respect of suicide in Scotland as there is in England.
9.30 p.m.
None the less, no change is recommended by the Royal Commission to bring Scotland into line with England. No change is recommended in the case of insanity to bring Scotland into line with England. In the case of a prosecution where there is insanity, a court in Scotland is entitled to raise the plea of insanity, whereas in England that is not so. But the Royal Commission makes no recommendation to bring Scotland into line with England. In every single one of these cases—and I could mention others—the recommendations are clear that the Scottish law should remain the same, but that the English law should be amended. In most cases, the Commission argued that English law should be amended to bring it into conformity with Scotland.
Now I wish to come to what is the heart of the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman. It is that the reason why we have had this hue and cry and this trouble in the cases in England—I know all the cases which have been alluded to and I do not desire to allude to them again unless it is necessary—in each one, whether it be the Bentley case, the Ellis case, or others, in almost every single one, had the Scottish law applied, there would never have been the hue and cry that there was. That is to say, if we had had the Scottish law effectively working in this country, we should have removed these causes célèbres. They would never have been a cause célèbre.
Let me give one example, the case of Mrs. Ellis. Why was it that the Ellis case caused so much worry? The reason was that Mrs. Ellis never had a trial, and that always worries the public. When her case came on, the plea of provocation was not open, as the law of

England stands. There was no question of her being innocent and, therefore, the judge had to direct that this lady was guilty. The result was that every member of the public in England proceeded to try her and to decide whether she ought to hang or not. They came to the conclusion either that she should hang or that she should not.
If we apply the far more humane and admirable laws of Scotland to that or any other case, we find that quite different considerations apply and we find that she would have had a fair trial. A jury would have decided the case, and once the jury had decided the case, the public conscience would have been satisfied. That is the reason why we are in this difficult situation in which we find ourselves today.
There are two clear opinions in the Committee on this question, but there is also a third. There are people who are out for retention in all cases all the time. There are others including the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), the promoter of the Bill, who are avowed abolitionists. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne wishes the principle of abolition to be applied whether it relates to a member of the Armed Forces or a case of treason or to whatever it relates.
The hon. Gentleman has been very fair in saying so. I belong to neither one nor the other of these sides. I take the view that what this country should have done 12 months ago was to reform the law of murder. Had it been reformed, properly reformed, we should not have had this public hue and cry. Had we not had that hue and cry, we should have had a law substantially along the lines of Scotland. Then there would have been no public demand.
I am quite sincere and clear about what I want. I am out to defeat this Bill. I hope that if it is not defeated in this Chamber it will be defeated in another place. I hope that Scotland will be excluded, because I want Scotland to be excluded. Scotland is my precedent for the whole reform of the law of murder and, therefore, it is essential that Scotland should be excluded from the scope of this Bill; because we have a Government pledged to introduce legislation which will bring the law into line with the law of Scotland. So. if Scotland does not go out—

Mr. Rankin: Does the hon. Member want the people of Scotland to reform the law of England?

Mr. Rees Davies: The people of Scotland are willing to offer their advice and counsel

Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Member prepared to hang in Scotland to reform the law of England?

Mr. Rees-Davies: I do not follow the intervention of the hon. Gentleman, but I do follow the argument that in Scotland very few executions take place. I agree with the right hon. Member for Woodburn and Clackmannan—[Laughter.] Well, it is an even better name than "Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire," if that is possible.
It is quite a formidable argument to say, "There have been so few executions; let us get rid of them all." It really does not hold water, because when the particularly brutal murder occurs it causes a violent upsurge of the public conscience in favour of the death penalty. That is why the Committee accepted the Amendment in regard to prison warders and why it went to within a few votes in the case of the armed robber. Hon. Members realise that there are cases in which the death penalty should be retained.
Scottish law is different in five main respects, utterly different, from ours. It will still remain different if we pass the Bill. Why should we not leave the sixth main difference, if the other five are operating satisfactorily? If it is the Government's intention to change the law of England and Wales, why should we interfere with Scottish law when there is no mandate, no cause célèbre and no hue and cry? Let us remember that the Crown Advocate and the Lord Justice-

General, giving evidence to the Royal Commission, said not only that the law of Scotland was satisfactory but also favoured the retention of the death penalty. That is in page 133 of the Commission's Report. In paragraph 383, the Crown Advocate indicated that Scottish law was satisfactory and that there was no reason for changing it. So did the legal and medical testimony, and the evidence of all the other witnesses from Scotland.

In the face of all that, I entirely understand the generalisation of the Setcretary of State for Scotland that the law of England should become the law of Scotland if the House of Commons votes for abolition, but for the special reason that the laws of the two countries are so different and the law of Scotland is of such a satisfactory nature it would be a retrogressive act to allow the Amendment to be carried.

I reiterate the argument of my hon. Friend the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) that, even if the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland feels obliged to abstain, that does not mean that the Home Secretary and other members of the Government are obliged to abstain. If they do, that may give hon. Gentlemen opposite a higher majority than the Committee would desire in this matter and might have an unfortunate effect in Scotland. where, I believe, there is no warrant for this change.

Several Hon.: Members rose—

The Chairman: I believe the Committee is ready to come to a decision.
Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 213, Noes 151.

Donnelly, D. L.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Reeves, J.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwoh)
King, Dr. H. M.
Reid, William


Dye, S.
Kirk, P. M.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lawson, C. M.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Edelman, M.
Ledger, R. J.
Ross, William


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Hoyle, C.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Arthur
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Llewellyn, D. T.
Short, E. W.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Logan, D. G.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fernyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Fienburgh, W.
MacColl, J. E.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Finch, H. J.
McGhee, H. G.
Skeffington, A. M.


Forman, J. C.
McGovern, J.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Fort, R.
Mctnnes, J.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McLeavy, Frank
Snow, J. W.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sorensen, R. W.


Gibson, C. W.
Madden, Martin
Sparks, J. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mahon, Simon
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Gower, H. R.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Stones, W. (Cousett)


Green, A.
Mathew, R.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Greenwood, Anthony
Maude, Angus
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mellish, R. J.
Swingler, S. T.


Grey, C. F.
Messer, Sir F.
Sylvester, G. O.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Taylor, John (West Lothians;


Grimond, J.
Mort, D. L.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Gurden, Harold
Moss, R.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda. W.)


Hale, Leslie
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hamilton, W. W.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hannan, W.
Oliver, G. H.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hastings, S.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, T.
Timmons, J.


Healey, Denis
Owen, W. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Holmes, Horace
Padley, W. E.
Viant, S. P.


Holt, A. F.
Paget, R. T.
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wade, D. W.


Hoy, J. H.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wall, Major Patrick


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pargiter, G. A.
Warbey, W. N.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Parker, J.
West, D. G.


Hunter, A, E.
Parkin, B. T.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hyntl, H. (Accrington)
Paton, John
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Irving, S. (Dartford)
Pearson, A.
Wigg, George


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Willey, Frederick


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St.Pnos.S.)
Pitman, I. J.
Williams, David (Neath)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Popplewell, E.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Probert, A. R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Proctor, W. T.
Woof, R. E.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pryde, D. J.
Yates, V. (Ladywaild)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K


Joseph, Sir Keith
Ramsden, J. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Keegan, D.
Randall, H. E.



Kenyon, C.
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kershaw, J. A.
Redhead, E. C.
Mr. K. Robinson and Mr. Hyde




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Campbell, Sir David
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'ombe &amp; Lonsdale)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Channon, H.
Freeth, D. K.


Arbuthnot, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Armstrong, C. W.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Gammans, Sir David


Ashton, H.
Cole, Norman
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Atkins, H. E.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Gibson-Watt, D.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr, J. M.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Glover, D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gooch, E. G.


Banks, Col. C.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Barber, Anthony
Crouch, R. F.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Barlow, Sir John
Cunningham, Knox
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Barter, John
Currie, C. B. H.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. C.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Dance, J. C. G.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Bidgood, J. C.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. MoA.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)


Bishop, F. P.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Black, C. W.
Drayson, C. B.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bossom, Sir A. C.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Boyd, T. C.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Erroll, F. J.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Farey Jones, F. W.
Hobson, C. R.


Bryan, P.
Finlay, Graeme
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Fisher, Nigel
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.







Horobin, Sir Ian
Lucas, P. B. (Brantford &amp; Chiswick)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
MoKibbin, A. J.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Howard, John (Test)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hudson, W. F. A. (Hull, N.)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Hughes, Hallett, Vice-AdmIral J.
Maitland, Hon. Patrlok (Lanark)
Soames, Capt. C.


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Speir, F. M.


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Marshall, Douglas
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hurd, A. F.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hutchison, Sir lan Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Moody, A. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hutchison, Sir James (ScotStoun)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Studholme, H. G.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Heave, Airey
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Nicholls, Harmar
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Nugent, C. F. H.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Oakshott, H. D.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim(Co. Antrim, N.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Osborne, C.
Wall, Major Patrick


Kaberry, D,
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Partridge E.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Kerr, H. W.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Kimball, M.
Pott, H. P.
Williams, F. Dudley (Exeter)


Lagden, G. W.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Lambton, Viscount
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Redmayne, M.
Woollam, John Victor


Leburn, W. G.
Rees-Davies, W. R.



Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Renton, D. L. M.



Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, 8.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Longden, Gilbert
Russell, F. S.
Captain Duncan and


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Major Anstrutber-Gray.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out from "Scotland" to second "for" in line 18.
There are a good many bad things about this Bill, and one particularly bad thing is the drafting of this subsection. It has apparently not occurred to the hon. Gentleman who is the promoter of the Bill that penal servitude was abolished in Scotland in 1949, and it may well be that on that account he may feel able to accept the Amendment. I think it is unfortunate that this subsection should be included in the Bill in the form in which it has been drafted.
The hon. Member would himself agree that penal servitude was abolished in Scotland by Section 16 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act. By that Act it was made clear that the court could impose a sentence not exceeding the maximum term of penal servitude which would have been imposed before—that is to say, a sentence of imprisonment. In England and Wales the same thing was done by Section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948.
It seems quite clear that this Bill has been on the stocks for a long time. The hon. Member will probably agree that this Clause is a hangover from the 1948 Bill, and I think he will agree that the drafting of the Bill in this respect is extremely bad. I do not want to make any reference to imprisonment for life

and to what may be the consequences of the Bill, but I think the hon. Member would agree that it is necessary to bring this matter up to date. Although he wishes to impress upon the rest of the community his abolitionist views, he should at least make the matter accurate and up to date as far as this Clause is concerned.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) is perfectly right. The Bill was drafted on the basis of the Clause which was added by the House of Commons on a free vote in 1948. By that Act penal servitude was abolished in England, but that amendment of the law did not apply to Scotland and the Clause as it was drafted in 1948 was therefore correct. It is perfectly true that in 1949 the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act was passed in which penal servitude was also abolished in Scotland.
The words which the hon. Member proposes to leave out were therefore necessary in 1948 but are not merely redundant but are mistaken words to apply in the circumstances of 1956. I will therefore advise the Committee to accept the Amendment to leave these words out.

Mr. J. E. S. Simon:: This is a most remarkable thing. It suggests to the Committee what we have all suspected—that no real consideration has been given to Scottish opinion on this Bill at any time after I948. If Scottish opinion had been canvassed on this matter it would have been


quite impossible for the Bill to have arrived at the House with this slovenly and out-of-date drafting.
In 1948, this Clause was drafted and since then a tremendous public campaign has been waged, with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) as its principal protagonist. The organs of public opinion have been whipped up to take part in this great effort of propaganda.[An HON. MEMBER; "Including the Sunday Express"] Weekly newspapers have been enlisted and Sunday newspapers have been enlisted.

Mr. Herbert Butler: And Reveille.

Mr. Simon: Books have been written. It has been a most remarkable thing to see how propaganda can have this effect—an effect almost of brain-washing.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has moved what he spoke of as a drafting Amendment and I have offered to accept his drafting Amendment. In no circumstance does an argument directed to any campaign in the country about other matters remain in order.

The Chairman: I thought that the hon. Member was giving his reasons for the Amendment. It will be realised that this is only the third speech on the Amendment.

Mr. Simon: I find it most remarkable that when the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has to admit to the Committee that a mistake in drafting of this sort has been made, something which almost amounts to an affront to the Committee, he should endeavour—

Mr. Woodburn: Further to that point of order, Sir Charles. Is it not the case that whenever a Bill comes before this House the Government, and every hon. Member who drafts the Bill, have to admit that things have been overlooked and must be corrected? There would otherwise be no point in having a Committee stage. Is this argument in order at all?

The Chairman: Yes, I have just ruled that it is.

Mr. Simon: I was interrupted—and I do not complain of the interruption at all—in the middle of a sentence. I was saying that it seems a most remarkable thing that with all this tremendous campaign in the country, one found many people, friends of oneself, who normally have a firm hold on reality, swept away—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—subjected almost to a process of brain-washing, so that during the early stages of this Bill and in the previous discussions all argument was jettisoned and one got the extraordinary state of affairs in which hon. Members on both sides could get up and give it as their opinion that the Royal Commission had come to the conclusion that capital punishment was no deterrent.
That was the effect of this tremendous campaign and shows its astonishing success. Yet with all that, Scottish opinion had not been sufficiently consulted for the promoters and supporters of the Bill to see that in 1949 the Scottish law had been altered. Quite obviously this Bill has been lying in the files of the campaign committee year after year. Death has taken place on the roads, death has taken place in China to the extent of millions of lives, and still this campaign relating to capital punishment goes on churning out its propaganda without anyone noticing that this Clause is drafted in a completely anachronistic way.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: In that case, does not the hon. and learned Gentleman think it extraordinary that the Government are giving time for such a Bill?

Mr. Simon: Many of us find it very strange, but when one considers how badly this Bill is drafted, as it now appears, it is necessary that a good deal of time should be given to putting it right.
I do not want to detain the Commitee unduly, but I do suggest that it is a most extraordinary thing, and one would have expected the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne to offer some apologies to the Committee that the Bill should be presented in this form. He has at any rate shown an element of contrition at the last moment in accepting the Amendment, and I am glad that it is from this side, and from my hon. Friend, that an improvement of the Bill has come about.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Davies: This Amendment is one of importance because it is another one which deals with the question of the inclusion and exclusion of Scotland. This Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) to assist the promoter of the Bill. The promoter is assisted by bringing Scotland into line with England, and it was a great kindness on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon to show up the bad draftsmanship of the Bill and to draft it properly in order to carry out its intention.
However, I do not want to carry out the promoter's intention. Whilst I have entirely the same views on the death penalty as my hon. Friends who moved and seconded this Amendment, I arrive at the reverse conclusion, for this reason. If this Amendment were accepted it would mean that England would be brought into line with Scotland, but, as I said in a previous speech a short while ago, I do not want to see England brought into line with Scotland; I ultimately want to see Scotland bring England into line with Scottish practice.
The whole purport of my argument has been that I want to retain any anachronism in the English law of murder until it can be properly amended. This is just one of those anachronisms. If the Bill remains in its present form, it will mean that there will be a difference between Scotland and England, and that is what I want to see. I therefore do not want to encourage the acceptance of this Amendment.
The promoter of the Bill, whose cunning and dexterity in the handling of the Bill has been very considerable, rose to his feet and hurriedly said, "Oh, yes, I will accept this Amendment" I do not blame him. I expected that he would do so because he had failed in this case to show that he had really not excluded Scotland properly, and therefore he was in a difficulty. But it is not the only time that he has failed in this matter. The Committee will remember that on the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill no consideration had been given as to whether the Armed Forces came within the Bill or not. We still have not heard about that, and we are still awaiting, no doubt on the Report stage, the necessary Amendments to include them. It will

be remembered that the House was advised by the Attorney-General that the better view was that they were not within the Bill.
On this occasion we have exactly the same position arising. Here the promoter of the Bill thought that in this matter the penalty under this Amendment was the same for England as for Scotland. But he was wrongly advised. In fact, he overlooked the important matter. and it is a matter of principle. In 1948 there was the Criminal Justice Act of England and in 1949 there was the Criminal Justice Act of Scotland. Therefore, we have got two quite different occasions upon which different penalties were being dealt with. We have got the same argument arising on this Amendment as we had arising in the previous case to exclude Scotland. This is yet another of the differences between the law of England and the law of Scotland. There is the question of penal servitude which had to be brought into line.
What I urge on the Committee is this. Those of us who were in favour of Scotland being excluded should, although it is anachronistic, seek to retain this anachronism because it will be yet a further opportunity of showing emphatically that we do not want England and Scotland to be brought into conformity by accepting this Amendment.
Those are some of the reasons—and, no doubt, there are other Members who will advance other reasons—for rejecting this Amendment, although moved in the best spirit, with the friendliest intentions and with a terminological exactitude for the law that one would expect from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), whose law in this matter is impeccable. They have done something which I am sure they never intended to do, namely, to assist the promoter of the Bill to remove an anachronism which ought never to have been contained in the Bill in the first place, but which, once we have got it there, we need to retain in order to defeat the Bill for a totally different purpose. For those, among other reasons, I hope that we will not encourage the promoter by accepting this Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: I propose to put the Question on this Clause under Standing Order 45, without any further debate.

Mr. Simon: On a point of order, Sir Charles. May I draw your attention to the terms of Standing Order 45? It says:
If, during the consideration of a bill in a committee of the whole House, the chairman is of opinion that the principle of a clause and any matters arising thereon have been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, he may, after the last amendment selected has been disposed of, state that he is of this opinion and shall then forthwith put the question, 'That the clause (or the clause as amended) stand part of the bill'.
I gather that it was under that Standing Order that you were proposing to put the Question straight away.

The Chairman: Certainly; that is what I said.

Mr. Simon: I rose merely to ask whether your mind had been directed to the phrase, "any matters arising thereon." The main principle of this Clause was discussed on Second Reading.

Mr. H. Butler: On a point of order—

The Chairman: I can deal with only one at a time. If the hon. Member will wait a moment, I will give him a chance.

Mr. Simon: May I finish this point of order? I was saying that the principle of the Clause was discussed on Second Reading, but that during the course of the Committee stage an Amendment has been moved and accepted which excepts from the Clause a certain class of murder, namely, murder committed while a sentence of life imprisonment is already being served. That is a most important exception. In my respectful submission, it strikes at the very principle and basis of this Clause. It is an exception to the principle of the Clause itself, and strikes at the very root of most of the arguments, which were arguments relating to deterrence, urged in support of the Bill and the Clause on Second Reading.
As I understood them, the arguments were that capital punishment can never be a deterrent, and it was on that basis, as I understood, that the House passed the Second Reading of the Bill. The Committee having now made an exception of this sort to this Clause, it is quite apparent that the Committee came to the conclusion

that, at any rate in one type of murder, capital punishment was a deterrent.
In those circumstances, I suggest, with very great respect, Sir Charles, that the principle of the Clause as amended, and particularly matters arising thereon, has not been sufficiently discussed. With very great respect, I ask you to reconsider your Ruling, and to rule that the Clause should be debated on the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill"

The Chairman: As a matter of fact, the point of the last Amendment, which was accepted, upon which I gather the argument is based—

Mr. Simon: My argument was not directed to the last Amendment, which was a drafting Amendment.

Mr. Butler: On a point of order.

The Chairman: Order. I can deal with only one point of order at a time. I must ask the hon. Member to wait a moment.

Mr. Simon: I am sorry to hold up the hon. Gentleman. The Amendment to which my argument was directed was the Amendment which excepted from the operation of the Clause murders committed by any person who was serving an existing sentence of life imprisonment. It is that, in my submission, which strikes at the very root of this Clause, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will at any rate agree with me on that.

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not agree with a single word that the hon. and learned Gentleman has said.

Mr. Simon: The hon. Gentleman may say that now, but from his argument when that Clause was debated it was a very different story that we heard. What he said then was that any of those Amendments struck at the root and principle of the Bill. It is because the acceptance of that Amendment by the Committee means that the Committee rejected, at any rate for one class of murder, the argument that capital punishment is no deterrent that I suggest that this amended Clause should now be debated.

The Chairman: I have listened very carefully to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. Really, what the


hon. and learned Member would like is for Standing Order No. 45 to be altered, and that if a Clause has been amended it should not apply. Is not that the point?

Mr. H. Butler: rose —

The Chairman: Will the hon. Member let me finish one thing at a time?

Mr. Simon: Again, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I rely on the terms of the Standing Order itself.
…that the principle of a clause and any matters arising thereon…
The principle of the Clause unamended was discussed, but an utterly new principle arose in view of the Amendment, and it is because of that that I ask you, Sir Charles, to say that the matter should be debated.

The Chairman:: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had read on a little further he would have seen that it is a matter of opinion. The words are, "he is of this opinion."

Mr. Butler: I am extremely grateful for the Ruling which you have given, Sir Charles. I rose on a point of order to ask whether it is in order for the hon. Gentleman to question your Ruling on the interpretation of Standing Orders

The Chairman: It is perfectly in order to question my Ruling. I have no doubt I make mistakes, but when I am wrong I am always willing to reverse my decision, but I have no intention of doing so this time.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I appreciate the point which you make, Sir Charles, about the question of opinion. There was one matter which arose in the course of the Committee stage on this in addition to the point already taken by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon). It was the whole question of the principle as to whether the Armed Forces were within or without the ambit of this Bill. That was not only argued at great length, but entirely different views were expressed as to the ambiguity as to whether it was within the Bill or without the Bill. Eventually that was taken on a Division when a great part of the House did not know whether it was in or out.
With great respect, it is a very important question to clear up on Clause 1 in

order to find out really what will happen with regard to the Armed Forces. It seems to me that that is the sort of matter which arose in the course of the Committee stage, and I can say without fear of contradiction that there was not one word about the Armed Forces on the Second Reading. It therefore only arose for discussion when it reached the Committee stage. It only arose on the Amendment which I moved. There was a great deal of debate and a lot of ambiguity, and in the end we never got the result clear. We got a Division with a small majority with a great deal of ambiguity.
10.15 p.m.
If there is to be discussion on the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," I presume that the sort of occasion when the matter would arise would be concerning an important Amendment which had not been able to be fully cleared up in the course of the discussion. When there is an important question of principle, like the matter of the Armed Forces, as to whether they should be in or outside the Bill, that would be a matter, I should have thought, which would arise for discussion on the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I wanted to ask a good many questions of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), the promoter of the Bill, about his intentions. That would seem to be in order, particularly as the Question is, presumably, susceptible to a Division. Before passing the Clause, one ought to have that opportunity to find out the intentions of the promoter in that matter. I suggest, therefore, that that furthers the point which has already been taken by my hon. and learned Friend when dealing with the other matter of the new principle arising on the Bill.

The Chairman: Whatever the promoter of the Bill thinks, on the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," we can discuss only what is in the Clause. One man's opinion is about as bad as another's.
Question put, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 205, Noes 163.

Division No. 194.]
AYES
[10.16 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Parker, J.


Albu, A. H.
Grimond, J.
Parkin, B. T.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gurden, Harold
Paton, John


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hale, Leslie
Pearson, A.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Hannan, W.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Awbery, S. S.
Hastings, S.
Pitman, I. J.


Baird, J.
Hayman, F, H.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Balfour, A.
Healey, Denis
Popplewell, E.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Holmes, Horace
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Holt, A. F.
Probert, A. R.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Proctor, W. T.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hoy, J. H.
Pryde, D J.


Benson, G.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Beswick, F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Randall, H. E.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hunter, A. E.
Rankin, John


Blackburn, F.
Hyde, Montgomery
Redhead, E. C.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reid, William


Blyton, W. R.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boardman, H.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pnos,S)
Royle, C.


Brockway, A. F.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Short, E. W.


Burke, W. A.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech( Wakefield)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Skeffington, A. M.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Clunie, J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Snow, J. W.


Coldrick, W.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Sorensen, R. W.


Cole, Norman
Keegan, D.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Kenyon, C.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Kershaw, J. A.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
King, Dr. H. M.
Swingler, S. T.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lawson, G. M.
Sylvester, G. O.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Ledger, R. J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, Arthur
Teeling, W.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Llewellyn, D. T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Deer, G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Delargy, H. J.
MacColl, J. E.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Dodds, N. N.
McGhee, H. G.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Donnelly, D. L.
McGovern, J.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
McInnes, J.
Timmons, J.


Dye, S.
McLeavy, Frank
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Madden, Martin
Wade, D. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness(Caerphilly)
Mahon, Simon
Warbey, W. N.


Edwards, Robert (Bliston)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mathew, R.
West, D. G.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Maude, Angus
Wheeldon, W. E.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mellish, R. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Fernyhough, E.
Mikardo, Ian
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Fienburgh, W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wigg, George


Finch, H. J.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Forman, J. C.
Moss, R.
Willey, Frederick


Fort. R.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, David (Neath)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Woolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Gibson, C. W.
Oliver, G. H.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oswald, T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gower, H. R.
Owen, W. J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Green, A.
Padley, W. E.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Greenwood, Anthony
Paget, K. T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Zilliaous, K.


Grey, C. F.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)



Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Pargiter, C. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. K. Robinson and Mr. Kirk




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr P. G.
Baldwin, A. E.
Bossom, Sir A. C.


Aitken, W. T.
Banks, Col. C.
Boyd, T. C.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Barber, Anthony
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Barlow, Sir John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Barter, John
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Armstrong, C. W.
Bidgood, J. C.
Brooman-White, R. C.


Ashton, H.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Bryan, P.


Atkins, H. E.
Bishop, F. P.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.


Baldook, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Blank, C. W.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.







Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Howard, John (Test)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Campbell, Sir David
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Partridge, E.


Channon, H.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hurd, A. R.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Redmayne, M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Crouch, R. F.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Renton, D. L. M.


Cunningham, Knox
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Dance, J. C. G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Deedes, W. F.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Kaberry, D.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Soames, Capt. C.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Kimball, M.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Drayson, G. B.
Lagden, G. W.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lambton, Viscount
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Leburn, W. G.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Fisher, Nigel
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Studholme, H. G.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Freeth, D. K.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McKibbin, A. J.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)


Gammans, Sir David
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Harold(Bromley)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Glover, D.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Turner, H. F. L.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Marshall, Douglas
Vosper, D. F.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Moody, A. S.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Heave, Airey
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Nicholls, Harmer
Woollam, John Victor


Hobson, C. R.
Nugent, G. R. H.



Holland-Martin, C. J.
Oakshott, H. D.



Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Horobin, Sir Ian
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre and


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Osborne, C.
Sir R. Grimston.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

2.—(SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND DURATION.)

Mr. Montgomery Hyde: I beg to move, in page 2, line I3, at the end to add:
(4) This Act shall not apply to Northern Ireland.
At first sight, it may appear anomalous that anyone closely associated, as I have been, with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in the promotion of the Bill should seek to exclude any part of the United Kingdom from its scope and particularly that as an Ulster Unionist Member I should wish to exclude Northern Ireland.
I move the Amendment not because I feel that the death penalty possesses a uniquely deterrent effect in Northern Ireland which it does not possess in Great Britain, but simply and solely for constitutional reasons. Under the Govern-

ment of Ireland Act, 1920, the administration and execution of justice were among those services transferred from the United Parliament and the British Government to the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland. It was also laid down in that Act that the Prerogative of mercy should be exercised by the Governor of Northern Ireland on the advice of the Ulster Cabinet, which forms for this purpose an executive committee of the Privy Council of Northern Ireland.
It would be wrong from the constitutional point of view for this Committee to attempt to legislate in a matter which falls within the local self-governing arrangements as provided for by Statute for Northern Ireland. Of course, if the Bill becomes law in Great Britain I would hope—and here I must say that I am speaking for myself and not for my Northern Ireland colleagues, with the


possible exception of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr)—that the Parliament at Stormont would in due course follow suit and, in accordance with its traditional step by step policy in legislative matters, abolish the death penalty in Northern Ireland as well.
It would be a standing reproach to Northern Ireland and to the Ulster people if this important and integral part of the United Kingdom were to remain for long the only part of the United Kingdom where the apparatus of the gallows is kept in use. At the same time, I think it only fair to point out that in spite of the disturbed political conditions prevailing from time to time in Northern Ireland, where, incidentally, the police are armed. our murder rate in proportion to our population has for many years been much lower than the corresponding figures in Great Britain. It is also remarkable that, in practice, the death penalty is gradually becoming obsolete in Northern Ireland.
In England and Wales, the average murder rate for many years has been 3.89 per million of the population; in Scotland it has been 2·52 and in Northern Ireland.69. Similarly with the carrying out of the death sentence. There are on an average 12 executions a year in England and Wales. Since the Northern Ireland Government was set up in 1921 there have not been a dozen executions there. In fact, there have been 11, and eight of them took place in the first ten years of the history of that Government. Not since 1944—twelve years ago—has there been an execution in Northern Ireland.
I mention these figures to show not that we in Northern Ireland are more law-abiding, although I think that we are, but because the crime of murder and the death penalty do not form such a serious and difficult problem with us as they do in this country. As I have tried to indicate, the question whether the death penalty should be retained or abolished in Northern Ireland is primarily a question for the Parliament of that country, and for that reason I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment, which also has the support of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Simon: I do not dissent in any way from the purpose of the Amendment. I desire to say only one sentence in connection with it. That arises out of the hope expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde) that Northern Ireland would not be the only part of the British Isles where the apparatus of the gallows would be kept in use—because that. I think, expresses a very widespread delusion as to the effect of the Bill.
In the first place, in respect of the rest of the United Kingdom, the Committee has already written into the Bill an exception, whereby the death penalty is preserved for murders committed by those already serving a sentence of life imprisonment. Therefore, the apparatus of the gallows will be kept in use in those parts of the United Kingdom by the very wish of this Committee. In any case, since the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) expressly limited the Bill to the crime of murder and omitted to deal in any way with the crime of treason, the apparatus of the gallows must be kept in use in England and Scotland for that crime.
Of course, the crime of treason comprises many sorts of murder, not only of various members of the Royal Family, but such heterogeneous figures as the judges in their seats dispensing justice. I cannot help remarking that every argument which has been put forward in regard to the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent to murder applies equally to the crime of treason and, therefore, although I do not dissent from the purpose of the Amendment, I think it would be a mistake if it went out from this Committee that we thought that the Bill was abolishing the apparatus of the gallows in this country.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Could the hon. and learned Member tell us whether capital punishment has been operated for treason in peace-time within the last 200 years?

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is any of this in order upon my hon. and learned Friend's argument, Sir Rhys?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The argument about treason is not in order. We are dealing with murder.

Mr. Simon: I was dealing with my hon. Friend's assertion relating to the apparatus of the gallows being kept in use. In one sentence—[Laughter.] I admit that my last sentence was rather a long one, but the next will be short. My argument was not confined to peacetime considerations. The truth is that we must not think that by the operation of this Bill we are abolishing the apparatus of the gallows—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and learned Member is getting back to treason.

Mr. Simon: I was not confining myself to treason, because it also applies to the other Amendment to the Bill. I will give way to my hon. Friend if he wishes, but I desire to draw attention to the fact that we must not think that the Bill will do away in his country, even apart from Northern Ireland—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. This Amendment deals with Northern Ireland.

Mr. Simon: Even if we do not pass this Amendment, even were Northern Ireland kept within this Bill, the apparatus of the gallows would still operate in Northern Ireland. The reason for that is that the hon. Gentleman has expressly excluded many classes of capital crime from the Bill and the Committee have excluded others. Therefore, do not let us delude ourselves into thinking that by the Bill we have abolished the hangman and his office.

Mr. Hyde: I wish to make clear that when I said that I hoped that Northern Ireland would not be the part of the United Kingdom in which the apparatus of the gallows was kept in use, I meant kept in use for the crime of murder.

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not propose to follow the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr Simon). I think that the Committee fully understand the situation—even after the hon. and learned Gentleman has made his speech. I do not conceal that were the Committee to decide to reject this Amendment, I should not break my heart, nor should I withdraw the Bill. Nevertheless, as a reasonably good constitutionalist, I am impressed by the argument that, having set up a Parliament in Northern Ireland and having, by agreement,

reserved certain functions to them, the House of Commons in this country ought to honour that agreement. As part of that agreement was to reserve questions of this kind to the Parliament of Northern Ireland, I would regretfully and reluctantly advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.
The result will not be any more executions in Northern Ireland, because I understand that there are no hangmen in Ireland, either North or South, and that if they want to have an execution, they have to import a hangman from England. One result of the Measure will be that there will be no one to import, and, therefore, in my opinion the Committee can safely accept the Amendment.

Mr. Simon: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in saying that if this Bill becomes law there will be no hangman in England. The Committee have expressly retained capital punishment—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is going beyond the scope of the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(RAPE.)

This Act shall not apply in any case in which the offender is convicted of murder committed in the furtherance of an offence against section forty-eight of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861.—[Sir V. Raikes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Victor Raikes: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The object of the proposed new Clause is to maintain the death penalty for murder in furtherance of the crime of rape. It will be agreed that that offence is a vile one. There is a tendency to assume that that type of crime is merely due to an irresistible impulse which no one could restrain, but it has taken place, although not on a large number of occasions, as the result of violent lust, which could have been controlled by the ordinary self-control which it is vitally necessary that a civilised State should maintain.
There has been an increase in rape and other sexual offences year by year, but not an increase in murder in that type of case. [Interruption.] I ask hon. Members to bear with me. This is a matter


which very much interests women, who know full well the danger in the lonely places in every great city of attack by lustful young men, and that it has grown year by year, even since the war.
Let me take Liverpool, of which I am one of the representatives. We have had cases of rape before the courts in Liverpool—[Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite are entertained at the moment. They will be less entertained a little later, when they hear from the women of their constituencies. We can leave it to them. I am entitled to put forward my arguments and to expect a courteous hearing from the other side, until I become over-provocative, which I may become before I finish my speech.
During the last two years, cases of rape have risen in Liverpool from 19 to 29 per year, but there have been no attendant cases of murder. As a matter of fact, in 1955 there was only one murder in Liverpool. During the same period there has been an increase in other sexual attacks on women from 223 to 240, a considerable increase, while murder was on the decline. There are places in Liverpool which are safe for no woman at night, but we have not had the ultimate offence of murder after the sexual attack.
There have been various cases of execution for that type of offence in the five years covered by the Observer's report, but very few cases where the death penalty has been exacted for that type of offence. During the five years there have been only seven cases in which the death penalty has been used; but it has been in reserve. The nation has known that it has been in reserve for that particularly filthy type of case during that period.
10.45 p.m.
Supposing that this vilest of all offences were removed from the sphere of capital punishment, it would be very easy for an increase in that type of murder to take place, perhaps in only one or two years. That would not be reflected in the sort of statistics in which hon. Members are so interested, but the degree of extra suffering, not only perhaps for a few victims but for their families as well, would be a degree of suffering for which Parliament itself would be responsible if a Clause of this sort were not inserted in the Bill, at least to ameliorate the Measure.
No one knows how many persons today convicted of rape would, in fact,

escape if they silenced the lips of perhaps the only person who could give evidence against them, because it is a crime where so often no one except the victim, if alive. can tell what has happened, Although, quite frankly, I am not basing this merely on the question of deterrence, but am going to say a word on the other aspect, on deterrence alone I am convinced that the knowledge that after that offence, or in furtherance of that offence if the final act of killing is committed, there could be the death penalty, must in some cases, at any rate, prevent the committing of the final act which, at the same time, would make it easier for the murderer to escape without being caught. The death penalty, in my view, is a unique deterrent.

Mr. Paget: Would the hon. Member make one point clear? If, as he seemed to describe, the person is killed afterwards in order to conceal the crime, how can that come within the Clause, because it would not be done "in furtherance" of the crime?

Sir V. Raikes: Although "in furtherance" of the act would cover anything, so far as one can judge what took place at the actual time when those two persons were together, if it would help the hon. and learned Member to support the new Clause and to make it clear—although I think it is clear enough at present—I would invite him, if necessary on Report stage, to add the words, "or immediately after the commission of any such offence," but I fear that by so doing I would not tempt the hon. and learned Member to join me.
I am inclined to think that, broadly speaking, the words "in furtherance" are good enough to deal with any part of the particular incident from the beginning until the time the victim is left by the person who has committed the crime. It may amuse the hon. and learned Member very much, he is very easily amused. I would not do as he did the other day, cast a slur on a long dead policeman by saying that he had apparently tried to frame an innocent man of murder.
I shall not speak for long, as other hon. Members feel strongly on the subject, but there are two other aspects on which I should like to say a word. Respect of the law is very vital if we are to maintain civilisation. No crime creates as great bitterness and emotion among


relatives as the rape and murder of a woman, or, even more, of a young child.
Supposing the Bill is passed in its present form, we may have a situation in certain cases in which an infuriated father or an infuriated mother, where an arrest has not yet been made but there is grave suspicion, and where they know that even when an arrest is made there will be no capital punishment, being tempted to take the law into their own hands.
In this type of case the family have to put up with a good deal of unpleasantness. They have to listen to defence arguments that a lustful young brute may have murdered the child but it was not his own fault; it was because he fell down the kitchen stairs when a child or because his mother had a bad dream just before he was born, or because his father had a bad experience during the war. They have to put up with all that, and if, in addition, they have to face the fact that this lustful young brute will live at the expense of the ratepayers and will not pay the penalty of his crime, there will be even greater bitterness than at present in such cases.
Can we seriously argue that it would be an advantage to the community today if Heath, Christie or White ways were still alive and being kept by the people of this country for an interminable period? Quite apart from such cases, which have been published in the Press, there have been plenty of other similar cases. I will not detail them; hon. Members either know them or are aware of the type of case to which I refer—the case of a child of 11 who, in 1950, was raped and strangled, the case of the murder of a child of five in 1953. These are horrible pictures which break through the bestial gloom of a past age. These are cases which, in my view, are kept in check by the fact that until now this country has taken the view that, even beyond the deterrent effect of capital punishment, certain crimes are so grave that it is the duty of the State to deal with them by the ultimate penalty.
I would remind the Committee of the suggested reasons given in the Report of the Royal Commission for the restoration of capital punishment in New Zealand. It is suggested that this was the

result of a number of notorious sex murders which took place during the period of abolition. Are we in this Committee to wait to see whether we get outbursts of that type of murder, after the abolition of capital punishment, before we restore the penalty? If we are, I venture to say that the Committee is unworthy of its great past.
I remind the Committee that we have argued practically everything so far on the question of deterrence. It is my view that the death penalty, as a deterrent, plays a part in that type of murder. But I agree, beyond that, very largely with the words quoted in the Report of Lord Justice Denning, when he said:
The ultimate justification of any punishment is not that it is a deterrent, but that it is the emphatic denunciation by the community of a crime: and from this point of view, there are some murders which, in the present state of public opinion, demand the most emphatic denunciation of all, namely, the death penalty.
I maintain that the particular type of crime with which we are dealing in this new Clause is in that particular category. I say this in all sincerity. The Committee may turn it down, but if it does it will be doing so against the view of a large majority of the people of the country. It will be turning it down against the overwhelming majority of the women of the United Kingdom, who, above all, have the right to ask for protection and defence by this House against the type of crime which is most of all a crime against women and children.
If this new Clause were carried, it would at least do something to check the fear of those who will say that without such a Clause the Bill will be a charter for murder.

Sir Beverley Baxter: My hon. Friend the Member for Garston (Sir V. Raikes) made his speech with great sincerity, and on all sides of the Committee we respect that. But I think he bears out one of the arguments which we who are abolitionists have put: that it is the retentionists who try to deal with this matter on an emotional basis, while we are trying to deal with it on a realistic one. He described the horror of murder and rape combined, and nobody with any common sense or sensitivity would think of denying that.
But may I just put this to my hon. Friend? There would be a trial at the


old Bailey of a man guilty of this heinous crime of rape and murder; the sentence would he hanging, and it would be carried out. But, simultaneously, there might be a murder by a poisoner, cruel beyond words. But that murderer, according to my hon. Friend, would not be dealt with in the same manner.
We cannot carry this Bill on a tariff of murders. What we are doing here is trying and judging, in this Committee, the death penalty, and whether it shall be retained or not. All these other arguments which come from sincerity and emotionalism, cannot be allowed to interfere with that.
This honourable House must decide whether or not the death penalty shall go. We must not make exceptions, with the possible exception of treason, which we may have to grant, and also the exception for Northern Ireland, which we have granted—but that was for political reasons. I am not very enthusiastic about it, but it is not the tariff which my hon. Friend is offering to us. I think that we should reject this new Clause.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: I do wish that my hon. Friend (Sir B. Baxter) would say in the House what he has said so many times when I have seen him trying to influence votes on this important subject. I think it should be said in open Committee. The alternative to hanging, in his opinion, was that a man should be sent to prison for life. I asked him to define "life", and he said "To rot, and rot, and rot." I have asked my hon. Friend to say this in the House, so that it could go on the record. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] What is wrong with that?

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Do I understand that the hon. Member is quoting from a private conversation?

Hon. Members: Shame.

11.0 p.m.

Sir B. Baxter: My hon. Friend mentioned that he was going to do this. He warned me.

Mr. Osborne: It is quite in order, because I allege, with a great deal of conviction, that this Bill and this Clause are being carried by votes largely—

Mr. Bevan: On a point of order. The hon. Member's statement has not been

made in the House or in Committee, and the hon. Member disgraces himself by mentioning it.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have nothing to do with an hon. Member's opinions.

Mr. Paget: This Committee depends on the fact that hon. Members can talk freely together without fear of being quoted. That honourable understanding makes a community of this Committee. If that understanding is to be abused this way of life here will be impossible.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of order. Every hon Member is responsible for the statements which he makes in the Committee.

Mr. Osborne: May I say this? I have not taken part in this debate, and I am entitled to state this. I have discussed this matter with my hon. Friend on many occasions, and I told him—

Mr. Bevan: It is not in order, in my opinion, for an hon. Member to answer an argument which has not been addressed to this Committee.

Mr. Osborne: May I put it this way? I have had many years of friendship with my hon. Friend. I am entitled to ask him this.

Mr. Bevan: In my respectful submission, Sir Rhys, it is not possible for you to listen to an argument in reply to a statement not made to the Committee.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not responsible for any statement which an hon. Member makes. He is responsible for any statement which he makes to the House or the Committee, provided that the statement he makes is in order according to the procedure of the House. The content of the statement is another matter.

Mr. S. Silverman: I respectfully submit that the remarks of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) are out of order on another ground. Whatever may be the merits, ethically or under the Standing Orders, of the course of the hon. Member, the argument which he seeks to propound is a general one: It is what might be called a Second Reading argument, and is not relevant to the new Clause before the Committee.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is a relevant objection. The hon. Member's argument has not been relevant to this new Clause.

Mr. Osborne: The last thing I wish to do—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] I shall not be silent for you.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr. Osborne: The last thing I wish to do is to transgress your Ruling, Sir Rhys, or the traditions of the Committee; but my hon. Friend told me tonight that he intended to make this statement. I listened to him, and as far as I am aware the statement was not made.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Question before the Committee is whether this new Clause should be given a Second Reading.

Mr. Rees-Davies: This issue of rape is similar to that introduced earlier regarding children. It can to some extent be attacked by the argument of the hon. Member for Southgate (Sir B. Baxter) that this exclusion must involve another; but there are one or two classes of offence which are so outrageous and affect the public conscience to such a degree that if the death penalty is abolished, and there are half a dozen such crimes in the next year, we will start these debates again.
Let us get one thing quite clear about these particular exclusions. The majority of us are trying to effect a difficult compromise, and those of us trying to do that are met from both sides of the Committee by the unflinching abolitionists—represented by the promoters of this Bill—and, let us be quite fair, by the equally unflinching group of hon. Members who take the exactly opposite view. So some of us have put down Amendments seeking to exclude certain classes of offences, and the matter with which we are concerned at the moment is a retributive one; for let us never forget that if a man commits murder and rape at the same time, public conscience will be so revolted that we shall find we are in the same position as New Zealand found herself and have to go back to the death penalty.
There have been three cases of rape which are recorded on page 321 of the Report of the Royal Commission; they

are cases 15, I6, and 35, and they occurred between 1931 and 1951. They are examples chosen by the Royal Commission, and the first is a case where two soldiers took a girl into a field, jointly raped her, and then murdered her. Both were found guilty of murder, and both were found to have raped her before she was killed. Both of them were executed. There is another case, number 35, which concerns a labourer who took a little girl of nine years—I emphasise, "of nine years"—into a field, and raped her. He was executed.
Is there any hon. Member here tonight who really believes that if such a thing as that happened in his constituency there would not be the most appalling hue and cry for the death penalty? The hon. Member who knows best about this is my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate, because he is one of the leading abolitionists. That is important, because at Southgate in 1948 there was a most violent murder and there was a unanimous demand for the retention of the death penalty. Everyone knew that there was this terrible hue and cry, and I must say, in passing, that one should have high regard for my hon. Friend's courage in withstanding the onslaught and holding to his views. For my part, I pay warm tribute to him. But we have to be realists.

Sir B. Baxter: I have reason to believe that the majority opinion in my constituency is against my attitude to this Bill; but, with the full knowledge it has, my constituency three weeks ago conferred on me the freedom of the borough. I assume, then, that it also conferred on me freedom to express my views as I think best in the House of Commons.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Certainly. I was for that specific reason paying tribute to my hon. Friend's courage in expressing his view, and I should like to think that my own constituency would act similarly when one felt so strongly about a certain subject. But there is a matter of degree, and most of us are not leading abolitionists or leading retentionists, most of us are the ordinary rank and file who are seeking to achieve something without making any great amount of trouble one way or the other. Some of us think that we can achieve our result by reforms of one sort or another; but there is a


borderline. That being so, on this particular issue of rape there were those two cases which I have given which led to executions, and those have been cases where the men have been found to be perfectly sane. A soldier rapes a woman. He may have a little drink inside him, but he is perfectly sane. In most cases there is no plea of insanity or even of diminished responsibility.
Then there is the other case—case 16. In that case there was a reprieve. There was no death penalty. In that case a man, with the encouragement of the woman, had taken her off for the purpose of sexual intercourse in a field, and in the middle of the sexual intercourse she had started to scream. She happened to have a particularly tender throat. There was medical evidence to that effect. He strangled her. The defence was one of inadvertence. It was found that he had strangled her in the course of the physical act, and in those circumstances he was reprieved.
We know that in cases where there may be circumstances of provocation the execution does not take place. But we are concerned with the man who deliberately rapes a woman and in the course of rape kills her. I maintain that we must pay some real regard to the question of human values. The sanctitty of human life is at the root of this argument. If one is an out-and-out abolitionist, well and good. But if one believes that cases from treason to murders, where one is in the face of the enemy in time of war, to the case of the double murderers and triple murderers—

The Deputy-Chairman: This proposed Clause is limited to rape.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am afraid that you misunderstand the point, Sir Rhys.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must restrain his comments.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I cannot explain this point unless I draw attention to the other matters by way of illustration. I am saying that this is one of the matters where the sanctity of human life is the principle. I am drawing attention to the fact that there are other cases such as those involving treason in the Armed Forces, the mass murderer and the murderer of police officers acting in the execution of their duty. There are about five. If it

is desired and intended to abolish the death penalty, then, if it must be abolished, retain it for those few cases where it does not contradict the public conscience so enormously as this class does. If we exclude rape and one or two other classes of murder, we shall not get the hue and cry arising on the death penalty. Otherwise, as sure as anything can be said in the House, if the death penalty is abolished the probabilities are that we shall have the most tremendous hue and cry from the public during three or four causes célèbres in the next year.
One of the arguments put forward by those who favour abolition is that the death penalty creates an unhealthy atmosphere, too much publicity, too much in the Sunday newspapers, too many articles on "How so and so killed the girl". But if we have a violent murder in circumstances such as rape, we shall have that hue and cry. There will be all the bigger hue and cry if a person does not suffer the death penalty, because the fathers and relatives will write and ask why the man has not swung for the offence. Instead of getting that type of unfortunate sensationalism in one way, we shall get it from the angle to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate referred. This sensationalism will still be created, which is one of the unfortunate aspects of a murder trial.
It is for that reason that my hon. Friend puts down this Clause. It is a fair criticism to say that it is not the only one he would like to see succeed, but nevertheless it is one that is limited to a clear field. It is a case which does not arise merely in the course of a sexual offence, or even merely in the course of an indecent assault. It is one which probably would occur in perhaps only one in two or three hundred murders, but this would stop us having that violent reaction of feeling which might otherwise arise unless this sort of Clause can be conceded. It is for those reasons that I support my hon. Friend's new Clause.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am afraid that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) gave away the case for this Clause. He said that the proper way to approach the matter was not to advocate total abolition or total retention. He thought that the proper way to deal with he matter was to abolish the death


penalty for most murders but to keep it for a few types of murder where a special case could be made.
That may be a very logical and intelligible argument, but it is the argument which we had last February on the Motion which was then moved and to which an Amendment was then moved, and the House of Commons decisively rejected it. It was exactly the same argument as we had on the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill, when there was an Amendment to almost precisely the same effect, and the House of Commons decisively rejected it. When we were engaged earlier in the Committee stage with Clause 1—where this matter I should have thought, more properly belonged than it does where we are dealing with new Clauses—we dealt with a whole series of exceptions, many of which were defended, and very eloquently and, in some cases, almost persuasively defended, by exactly the same argument—and, with one exception, the Committee rejected them.
The one exception which the Committee accepted was really very illustrative of the Committee's mood, and was almost in line, paradoxically enough, with the attitude which the House of Commons has adopted throughout this whole controversy, because the Committee—paradoxically, as I have said—accepted the Amendment retaining the death penalty for the one type of murder which, so far as one knows, has never been committed either in an abolitionist or in a retentionist country.
The reasons that the House itself and the Committee have rejected this argument that there is some sort of acceptable, workable, equitable half-way house that we would be wise to accept are to be found set out in great detail in the Royal Commission's Report, and, indeed, have been canvassed in this controversy for more than 50 years—I think almost for 90 years. It is the unanimous conclusion of those who have examined it that this proposal, which is attempting to find an acceptable compromise, is inequitable, unworkable and, in the last resort, immoral.
In support of that view, I am able to claim in aid the Government's advice, the Home Secretary's advice, the advice of the Leader of the House, even though

they are against the view that the death penalty ought to be abolished and would prefer to retain it altogether. In those circumstances, at this time of day to come with one particular exception and to say, "Although we have rejected all the others, the case for this is exactly the same as the case for those which we have rejected, but let us stultify ourselves—

Sir V. Raikes: That is quite untrue.

Mr. Silverman: I do not want to keep the Committee long, but one can go through the whole series of Amendments we debated when discussing Clause I and find that in every single instance the argument was, "This is so exceptional, so brutal, so atrocious, so different a kind of murder; this is the kind of murder for which the public will not accept any other penalty than the death penalty." What the hon. Member is inviting the Committee to do is to stultify itself in that, having rejected the argument about calculated murder, premeditated murder, the murder of children, the murder of policemen, and the murder of warders, we should accept the death penalty in this case, and in a form which is manifestly not capable of doing what the hon. Member wishes to do.
The Amendment says:
This Act shall not apply in any case in which the offender is convicted of murder committed in the furtherance of an offence against section forty-eight of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861.
The offence against Section 48 is rape, and murder cannot be committed in furtherance of rape. It may be committed afterwards. I do not want to take a technical point of that kind because I quite appreciate that there is an argument the other way, and even if there were some verbal infelicity in the drafting it would be easy enough to correct it.
What I do say is that the case for the Amendment can rest—as the hon. Member quite frankly and fairly rested it— only upon the argument that there should be some exception, and for the Committee to accept it now would be stultifying everything that has been done since last February. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the Amendment. I do not know whether it is presumptuous on my part to say this, but there was to be an endeavour to complete the Committee stage tonight, and as we have less than


forty minutes left, I would ask the Committee whether it is not ready to come to a decision now.

Mr. Neave: I hope the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will allow me to say something about this point, because it is a matter of very great importance. I do not subscribe to his view that because a certain class of murder has never been committed we should not, therefore, consider the question whether or not we should abolish the death penalty. The argument of those like my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) who has spoken in favour of Amendments to apply the death penalty to certain classes of crime, is that we are concerned with public security. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston (Sir V. Raikes) rightly said. the question is whether we can prevent such crimes in future.
Therefore, I do not think it was really right for—of all people—my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Sir B. Baxter) to say that we were being emotional about the matter. We are concerned with the question of public security. Surely that is a very important matter for us to consider. It is in that context that we should consider my hon. Friend's Amendment. I thought that he put his case extraordinarily well, and I am certain that he impressed the Committee. I do not think he was being emotional when he said that women would listen to what he had to say because, quite clearly, we are here considering a type of murder which may occur—although fortunately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet said, it does not often occur—and which is of a particularly brutal and unpleasant character.
It may be that the day will come when the law of murder will be reformed, and we shall not be concerned with certain classes of murder where it is quite obvious that the injury done was not intended. It may well be that the House, at some other time, will consider the law of murder in such a way as to make it clear that murder is committed when some kind of violence is intended, and not otherwise. Rape is usually associated with violence. For that reason, surely my hon. Friend was right to put down this Clause and to endeavour to persuade the Committee that they ought to take the view that, as

other hon. Members on this side of the Committee have attempted to persuade the Committee, there are certain types of crime to which the death penalty should be applied. That is the point, and that is very different from what the hon. Gentleman says—

Mr. David Weitzman: How does the imposition of the death penalty prevent the commission of the crime of rape?

Mr. Neave: The point about this Amendment, which was made by my hon. Friend, is that it is in furtherance of the crime of rape. There is no dispute about that. We have endeavoured to persuade the Committee that when people commit burglary or housebreaking or any type of violent crime, and in the course of committing that crime they commit murder, the death penalty should apply. Surely that is the point in this case. If a person commits a felony, and that felony is rape, and in the course of that felony he murders someone, either by putting his hand over the girl's mouth, or something like that, and he does it when he knows his intention is to commit violence, then the death penalty should apply.

Mr. Weitzman: May I put my question again to the hon. Member? I do not think he understood it. How does the imposition of the death penalty prevent the commission of the crime of rape?

Mr. Neave: That is not the point. It never has been the point, and I do not think the hon. and learned Member understands me.
The point of this Amendment has been clearly made, and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, who is a knowledgeable person about these matters, knows perfectly well that the point we are making in this case is that where a murder is committed in the furtherance of the felony of rape, then, if the Home Secretary is satisfied, the death penalty should apply.

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman must not drag me into the argument. I have never been able to follow the point at all. I should have thought that if the crime of murder had been committed the crime of rape was no longer possible.

Mr. Neave: I am not now so certain as I was that the hon. Gentleman knows


the law. Surely the law is that if in the furtherance of the crime of rape violence is committed and that results in someone's death, that is murder? It may be a question of constructive malice. It may be that the law of murder will be reformed in the future, but the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what is the law today and what we are referring to. I am surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) did not understand what I was talking about.

Sir B. Baxter: My hon. Friend has had great experience of the courts. Would he care to deal with the one point I raised; that at the Old Bailey at the same time there might be the trial of a rapist murderer and the trial of a cold-blooded poisoner. Can my hon. Friend foresee the possibility of one sentence for the rapist and a lesser sentence for the cold-blooded poisoner? Can he visualise that?

Mr. Neave: Surely such cases should be treated on their merits and considered by the judge and jury. We are dealing with the felony of rape and whether, if the felony of rape is carried out and murder results, the death penalty should apply and—

Mr. Paget: Surely that is not the point here. I can see perfectly well that one could murder the lady's husband in the furtherance of an intention to rape her, but the person whom one could not murder with the intention of the furtherance of the offence of rape is the person whom one rapes. One cannot do something in furtherance of something which has already been done.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Neave: From the hon. and learned Gentleman's experience in the criminal courts he must surely know what nonsense he is now talking. If while in the act of committing a felony involving violence, for example, rape, a person kills, without intending to kill, that may be murder at the present time. The hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. If it is committed in furtherance of rape, that may be murder.

Mr. Paget: Nobody disputes that if the intention is to rape and the person kills it may be murder, but it is not "murder in furtherance of rape".

Mr. Neave: The interventions of the hon. and learned Gentleman mean absolutely nothing at all. If murder is committed in the commission of the crime of rape and the judge and jury are satisfield it is a murder which has been committed, it is the contention of some of us on this side of the Committee that the death penalty should apply.
I support the proposed new Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston. It may well be that the law requires some attention in these respects, but I do not in the least agree with some of the interventions that have been made in regard to that matter. The point here is one of public safety, and it is the duty of Parliament to have regard to the possibility that murder may be committed in these circumstances. The proposed Clause goes to the very root of the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate says that it is a matter of all or none; that it is abolition or nothing, whatever the type of crime. There could be no more foolish or dangerous an attack upon public safety than to take away the penalties for this type of sexual crime. Hon. Gentlemen must remember that the public are very much alarmed at the number of sexual crimes committed. Because of that, we should support the proposed Clause and include it in the Bill.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: rose—

The Chairman: I think the Committee are ready to come to a decision. We have had nearly an hour on this new Clause.

Mr. Lagden: I did not intend to speak in this debate at all. I have not taken part in any of the debates on this Bill, but having listened with some regret to arguments that have been put to the Committee on this new Clause, I must say something at this stage.
It is most alarming to me that this Committee of the House of Commons should be looking upon the crime of rape SO casually. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is dreadful that hon. Members who are in favour of abolition should at every opportunity say that we who are against abolition should not introduce emotion into this matter.
I ask them to look at emotion from another angle. What sort of emotion is


in the heart of a mother or a father who finds a daughter lying on a table in a police station dead through rape? That type of emotion must not be forgotten. We owe it to the women of this country to see that they are protected. If we totally disregard this new Clause the time will come when women will not be able to walk home in safety. I should like the Committee to pause for a moment and to realise the type of lout that lies in wait for women. Those of us who have been engaged over a long period in welfare work know—it can be ascertained through the courts and other sources—that undoubtedly in many cases that type of individual is rotten with venereal disease.

Mr. Harold Lever: On a point of order, Sir Charles. Is this speech addressed to the new Clause or the general question of liability to rape of women when walking home? Is the hon. Member in order in addressing an argument on the general evils of rape on this new Clause?

The Chairman: I thought the new Clause was related to that subject.

Mr. Lever: As I read it, the new Clause would mean that murder committed in furtherance of rape would involve the death penalty, not that rape should suffer a severer penalty. Is not the argument of the hon. Member solely related to the evils of rape at present, not to murders committed in furtherance of rape, whatever that may be?

Division No. 195.]
AYES
[11.39 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Aitken, W. T.
Crouch, R. F.
Henderson, John (Cathoart)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Cunningham, Knox
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Arbuthnot, John
Currie, G. B. H.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Armstrong, C. W.
Dance, J. C. G.
Howard, Hon. Grevll[...]e (St. Ives)


Ashton, H.
Deedes, W. F.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Banks, Col. C.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Barber, Anthony
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hurd, A. R.


Barlow, Sir John
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)


Barter, John
du Cann, E. D. L.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bidgood, J. C.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bishop, F. P.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Black, C. W.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Kaberry, D.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Fisher, Nigel
Kimball, M.


Boyd, T. C.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lagden, G. W.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'ombe &amp; Lonsdale)
Leburn, W. G.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col, W. H.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Glover, D.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Bryan, P.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Logan, D. G.


Butler, Rt. Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lucas, P. B. (Brenttord &amp; Chiswick)


Channon, H.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
McKibbin, A. J.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Cole, Norman
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Marshall, Douglas

The Chairman: I thought the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) was in order.

Mr. Lagden: Thank you, Sir Charles, I, too, think it is in order. I think that the women of this country, the women from the constituencies of those who will flock into the Lobby to do away with the death penalty, will say this when there is a further outbreak of rape, "You are the people who are putting our mothers, our wives and our sisters in this position." Surely as they go into the Lobby tonight they will carry with them the responsibility for the further increase there will be in rape and death by rape.
As I was about to say when I was interrupted on an unnecessary point of order by the hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever), people who engage in this crime of rape are as often as not rotten with venereal disease. Often they are rotten mentally as a result, and we lose nothing at all when we lose them from the society in which we try to live decently.
I do not want to detain the Committee and to be accused of filibustering, but I ask this question: what sort of an animal, including the human, animal, is it that, through prejudice, refuses to protect its female? That is what hon. Members are doing tonight.
Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes, 124, Noes, 166.

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Renton, D. L. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Ridsdale, J. E.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Moore, Sir Thomas
Roberts, Sir Peter (Healey)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Oakshott, H. D.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Vosper, D. F.


Osborne, C.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Soames, Capt. C.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Partridge, E.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Pitt, Miss E. M.
Steward, SirWilliam (Woolwich, W.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Pott, H. P.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Studholme, H. G.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Woollam, John Victor


Redmayne, M.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thompson, LL-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)
Sir Victor Raikes and Mr. Neave.




NOES


Albu, A. H.
Gurden, Harold
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hale, Leslie
Palmer, A. M. F.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hannan, W.
Pargiter, G. A.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Hastings, S.
Parker, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Hayman, F. H.
Parkin, B. T.


Baird, J.
Holt, A. F.
Pitman, I. J.


Balfour, A.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Popplewell, E.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hughes, Emrya (S. Ayrshire)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Senn, Hon. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Hunter, A. E.
Probert, A. R.


Benson, G.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pryde, D. J.


Beswick, F.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Randall, H. E.


Blackburn, F.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Redhead, E. C.


Blyton, W. R.
Jeger, Mrs.Lena (Holbn &amp; St.Pncs,S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boardman, H.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Hoyle, C.


Brockway, A. F.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Short, E. W.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Champion, A. J.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Skeffington, A. M.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Keegan, D.
Stater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Coilick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Kenyon, C.
Snow, J. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kershaw, J. A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Crossman, R. H. S.
King, Dr. H. M.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Kirk, P. M.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lawson, G. M.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ledger, R. J.
Swingler, S. T.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sylvester, G. O.


Deer, G.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lewis, Arthur
Teeling, W.


Delargy, H. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Dodds, N. N.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
MacColl, J. E.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Dye, S.
McGhee, H. G.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McGovern, J.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
McInnes, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edwards, Robert (Bliston)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Madden, Martin
Warbey, W. N.


Fernyhough, E.
Mahon, Simon
Weitzman, D.


Finch, H. J.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
West, D. G.


Forman, J. C.
Mathew, R.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fort, R.
Maude, Angus
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mikardo, Ian
Wigg, George


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gibson, C. W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Willey, Frederick


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gower, H. R.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Green, A.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Greenwood, Anthony
Oliver, G. H.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Oram, A. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Grey, C. F.
Oswald, T.
Zilliacus, K.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimond, J.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Mr. K. Robinson and Mr. Hyde.

The Chairman: I understand that the next Clause is not going to be moved.

Title

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: The Amendment to which the Committee agreed on Clause I necessitates an Amendment to the Title. That is the reason for the Amendment in my name; but there is also an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). As the Bill is now, the form of his Amendment would be more appropriate than the form of my own Amendment. With permission, therefore, I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out "Abolish or for a period suspend" and to insert:
Provide, subject to an exception regarding murders by persons already serving a sentence of imprisonment for life, for abolishing, or suspending for a period.
This exactly incorporates the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 143.]

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

11.50 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Before turning to the main subject with which I want to deal tonight, I wish to make two points generally concerning the National Health Service. One concerns the old people in our population, and the other the appointment of members to, hospital management committees
Regarding the old people, I want to say, first, that I believe the Guillebaud's Committee's admittedly tentative conclusion about the changing structure of the population having an effect upon the demands on the Health Service to be mistaken, because although it may well be that marriage—and I am the last to dissent from this—keeps old people out of trouble as far as the National Health Service is concerned. and that therefore, as there will be more married people among the older population of the future, those older people will not make extra heavy demands, I think the Report overlooks an important development in medical science, namely that it is now possible to extend, to a measure not before deemed possible, the actual life of the body. The consequence may well be that we shall have a larger proportion of old people whose bodies have outgrown their minds. Consequently we shall have an increasing number of bedridden senile patients. I therefore suggest that we shall require a radically new approach to the provision of beds and staffing for bedridden senile patients who undoubtedly in future will make a disproportionate and irrelevant demand on general hospitals and on mental hospitals in particular.
Secondly, I hope that we may be assured that high in the Government's list of priorities in their scheme for the National Health Service is the maintenance and provision of geriatric units I should like an assurance that there will be more geriatric units, both independently and as parts of general hospitals, so that we may eventually achieve at least one geriatric unit to serve every catchment area in the country.
With regard to hospital management committees, I should like to quote from paragraph 717 of the Guillebaud Report:
…we can only reiterate that…hospital authorities…and local health authorities should continue to give prominence to the need for co-operation in their constant endeavours to achieve a fully integrated National Health Service.
That is all very fine, but it will not help a particular type of local authority in which I am specially interested—namely, the non-county borough. My own non-county borough comes in an area in which the local authority for the purposes of the Act is the Essex County Council—generally known as "Chelmsford "—which is a remote body, and the North-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board, which is even more remote; so remote indeed that no one has even given it a geographical nickname. No amount of co-operation between these two remote bodies will help the practical co-operation between the various parts of the Service required in my borough.
What we want is co-operation between the health committee of the borough council and the area health sub-committee, on the one hand, and the hospital management committees of the hospitals serving the borough on the other hand. All of that depends on the composition of the hospital management committees, and in my case that composition is determined by the "Chelmsford" nominations, as they are called, no account being taken of the wishes of the borough council. For example, Mr. A. is a member of a hospital management committee in my area, and Mr. B. is nominated at the end of Mr. A. 's term. But Chelmsford appoints Mr. A. again. Mr. A., everyone is agreed, had served with great efficiency on the management committee, but he happens to have left are area two years ago to live in retirement far away in another part of the country.
The Minister should be aware of these practical defects which do occur in National Health Service co-operation and are bedevilling the smooth working of the Service—defects which, as I have tried to point out, are particularly apparent in the case of the non-county borough.
I should like now to turn to the mental health service. I need refer only briefly to its importance or size. It accounts for

40 per cent. of our hospital beds, or 46 per cent. if one includes the mentally deficient as well. Today it is an immensely important part of the hospital system. No longer is it the "snakepit" or the asylum as in the past. Today it is a curative service—the figure of cures is about 75 per cent—and people who used to be regarded as incurably mad are normally able to have treatment which sends them out cured. The curative nature of the work is the greatest part, but it is still the Cinderella of the National Health Service, and its treatment in the Guillebaud Report is inadequate to the point of insult.
I should like to raise with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary a number of points, all of which involve expenditure, and I will in fact be giving her a shopping list.
First of all, we must have a huge capital building programme for mental hospitals. Conditions of buildings are bad enough in comparatively modern hospitals such as Claybury and Goodmayes, in my own area, but they are quite shocking at, for example, Lancaster Moor in the north of England where the hospital was put up in the 'seventies. It is particularly important that we should try to improve the physical, actual buildings of these hospitals, because if the mental health service is to be a proper curative service it must have the confidence and co-operation of the public. It must break down the fear which the public traditionally has of mental hospitals from the days when they were lunatic asylums. We shall, however, never break down that fear so long as the worst type of hospital buildings exist in any part of the country. The Minister is to be congratulated in this context on the mental health exhibition, which should do much to educate the public out of its horror of those places it used to dread, places to which people would not have their relatives go.
Supplementary to that, I think there should be more encouragement to those hospital management committees who are trying to make the best of old buildings. For example, much can be done by the imaginative use of decorations, but too often there is not enough money to carry out what is necessary. The Minister must have regard to these needs when allocating funds to regional hospital


boards and say what it is that the allocation is for, so that the management committees, when they send in their estimates, get what they want from the board.
I want to refer next to the enormous development in domiciliary psychiatric out-patient treatment which is going to be a major factor in the future development of our mental health service. I hope that the Minister will beware of the Committee's grave oversight in omitting mention of this from the Guillebaud Report.
Fourthly, I want to ask the Minister to give urgent consideration to the lack of provision made for the care of mentally ill children. There are only two institutions in the country for such cases, and this is a special problem which is inadequately catered for and is causing grave anxiety to responsible people in the mental health service.
I want to say a word about the staffing of the mental health service. I think it is of vital importance that the pay and status of medical superintendents of mental hospitals should be improved. In the long run the quality of an institution depends upon the medical superintendent, his quality and calibre, and at the moment. I am told, the incentives are not enough to attract and hold the men we want.
With regard to the lower ranges of staff in mental hospitals, I ask the Minister not to be too dogmatic in his decisions on the question of in- or out-accommodation for staff. In many cases it may be desirable to provide funds for building accommodation for nurses to live in. I have particularly in mind Claybury Hospital in my own constituency, which is in a comparatively isolated situation. The authorities at this hospital find it particularly difficult to accommodate the staff —which they are able to get for a first-class hospital. There is one sister who is retiring after thirty years, and who occupies the same room measuring 11 ft. by 8ft. 6 ins. which she occupied as a student nurse.
If it were possible to build a proper hostel for the accommodation of nurses in the grounds of the hospital, it would solve at one blow the problems which are being experienced there, because the most hopeful source of recruitment for nurses in the mental hospital service at

the moment is from aliens and Commonwealth citizens. There are special problems attaching to those people, which make it important that they should be accommodated in the hospital. They cannot be sent out to seek accommodation as other types of staff are able to do.
Before I leave the question of the staff of mental hospitals, I must record a modest tribute to these people. Going round these terrible places has been to me a most inspiring and, strangely enough, hopeful experience. No praise is too high for the cheerfulness, patience, the astonishing compassion and imagination of these people for whom the best praise would be that they are fully worthy of the great Christian tradition of this nation.
I want now to turn to the question of mental deficiency. The Guillebaud Report makes no attempt to cope with the tragic and cruel inadequacy of the provision for mentally deficient children. There are 15,000 in the country, and they are born at the rate of 3,000 or 4,000 a year. In Essex alone there are 500 who have been waiting for two years and more for places in institutions.
When I read letters from constituents month after month and year after year, always from the same people and always with hope to begin with, and gradually becoming hopeless, I find that I cannot answer them satisfactorily. I ask the Minister to recognise that the waiting that we are causing these parents brings to them distress which is unbearable. I myself feel that the responsibility is an intolerable burden on my conscience. I implore the Minister to provide the funds for the buildings and to take steps to see that we recruit adequate staff to keep them going.
What I have asked for involves spending money. I would say two things to the Minister. First. I welcome the "Mental Million" for mental hospital building. But this million is not enough. Please make it £6 million. If the Minister asks me where the money is to come from, I will tell him. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to revise his whole thought on this matter. I would commend to his attention paragraph 283 of the Committee's Report which says:
There must be a clear and ungrudging appreciation of the fact that if more money is expended in one direction it must mean


(unless there is an increase in the total resources placed at the disposal of the Service) that less is available to be spent in other directions.
We want to face that and to accept it, and to think again about the whole question of financing the Welfare State and to ask ourselves whether it is not fundamentally wrong to apply slump principles to a surfeit and boom economy. We are at our wits' end to restrict spending on luxuries. We are limiting hire purchase, imposing Purchase Tax, and putting up the Bank Rate, but we still subsidise the National Health Service to the tune of £400 million a year. At the same time we say that we cannot help, because it would cost too much, the utterly defenceless people who are mentally crippled. It would cost us £6 million a year.
I ask the Minister to admit frankly that this is really quite crazy, because, of course, we can get this £6 million if we want it, and it would be thoroughly sound anti-inflationary policy to do so. The Parliamentary Secretary should ask which is the more important; that everybody should pay half the price for a bottle of aspirins or that we should fulfil our duty to care for those who cannot help themselves. I think that there is only one answer, and I ask my hon. Friend to put it to her right hon. Friend the Minister as to whether it is not really time that we took the only proper and logical step and raised this £6 million a year, which we so desperately need for this Service, by doubling the prescription charges in the National Health Service.

12.7 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) has raised a vast number of questions, and I know he will appreciate that it may not be possible for me to cope with them all in 12 minutes, but I will try to answer as many of his points as I can in the time.
May I first of all emphasise that there is no question in the Ministry as to the priority of the services for old people, and in announcing his three main priorities my right hon. Friend very recently named them as mental health, old people, and the hospital building programme. So far as concerns the hospital provision for

old people, we have recently conducted a national survey of all the available sources, to which the Guillebaud Report referred. Although over half of the hospital management committees have beds specifically for chronic sick—and there are, in all, 55,000, which is 1·2 per thousand of the population, and a furter 1,300 in respect of whom we have contractual arrangements with voluntary homes—and while it is also true that the need varies very considerably from area to area, there being some areas, including my hon. Friend's area of Ilford, where there is a shortage of beds for chronic sick—nevertheless the need is not so much for more beds as for better use and better turnover of the existing beds.
I agree with him wholeheartedly, and indeed it has been laid down very firmly as the policy of the Ministry, that we should do everything to encourage old people to stay in their own homes as long as possible by the provision of the local authority services and by the provision of additional domiciliary geriatric services. To this end there has been a very considerable expansion of the services provided by local health authorities. One of the most important is the domestic help service, under which the local authorities who were employing about 11,000 people at the end of 1948 had just on 36,000—over three times as many—in 1955, and well over half of the domestic help service goes to old people. In the same way, the home nursing service has risen in number over the same period from 7,700 to 9,800 in round figures, and, again, more than half of the work of the home nurses is for the elderly and old folk.
The local health authorities also provide health visitors who are available to take part in the services designed for old people, and to this provision is added domiciliary visits by geriatric physicians. There has been a very considerable increase in this necessary service, which not only aids the better classification of old people awaiting admission to hospital —which is a point which my right hon. Friend has very much at heart—but enables a clearer decision to be made as to whether old people need to go in, whether their disability is such that they will be permanently in hospital or whether they are capable of being rehabilitated after in-patient geriatric treatment.
I can assure my hon. Friend that a very substantial increase has been made in the development of hospital geriatric units. Since 1948, over 70 such units have been established in hospitals in England and Wales, and these units have done outstanding work in treating and rehabilitating many thousands of cases. It is clear that in recent years the development of the geriatric unit has revolutionised the treatment of the elderly chronic sick. I have myself seen an old lady of 92, who had broken a limb at the age of 88, had been in hospital for eighteen months, had been taught to walk again and, having come out, had broken another limb when she was 91, but who cheerfully told me, holding two parallel bars and learning to walk yet again, that she was going to be out by her 94th birthday. Such a thing could hardly have happened ten years ago.
A chronic sick survey was carried out for the North-East Metropolitan Area—the Essex side—towards the end of last year. In that part of the region outside the administrative County of London, 3,375 beds for the chronic sick were provided by the hospital management committees, and a further 420 under contractual arrangements. That means a provision of 1·15 per thousand of population.
The geographical distribution of beds for the chronic sick within the region shows a haphazard pattern in relation to the distribution of the population. I appreciate that one of the points which is causing most concern to my hon. Friend is the fact that only 22 beds—all for women—are allocated by the Ilford and Barking Hospital Management Committee and, although cases of real urgency are admitted to general beds in this group, it has been necessary to refer many cases to other groups in the region. More beds for the chronic sick in this area are clearly needed to prevent the blocking of general medical beds by chronic cases.
The chronic sick problem in this part of the region is considerably helped by the outstanding geriatric service provided at Langthorne Hospital, Leytonstone. This hospital, with 886 chronic sick beds, a turnover of three patients per bed per annum, and no waiting list, provides an excellent domiciliary service and outpatient facilities for old people. That is a pattern which we should like to see developed elsewhere.
In Ilford there is the difficulty of the relationship between the county administration of health and welfare services from Chelmsford and the council of the large non-county borough serving a population of 180,000. For health service purposes the county is divided into 11 areas, each with a varying degree of delegated powers. There is the difficulty of the relationship between the area health sub-committee covering Ilford and the health committee of the borough council and its medical officer of health. A similar difficulty arises between the hospital management committee for the Ilford and Barking area and the borough council's health committee. It is useful to have such problems as these ventilated by means of an Adjournment debate.
The Guillebaud Report recommended that medical officers of health should be closely associated with the other branches of the National Health Service. The question of admission of patients to hospitals is always a medical decision. In the first place, cases are put forward by their general practitioners of old persons requiring hospital treatment, and the decision is then for the medical staffs at the hospitals. Where the medical officer of health has a mounting list of such cases reported to him by his home nurses or health visitors he will be in a better position—with more direct contact with hospital boards and the medical officers at the hospitals—to draw attention to the deficiencies which he finds.
Many suggestions of closer co-operation were made in the Guillebaud Report, and my hon. Friend will appreciate that these have been referred to the bodies concerned and are a matter of discussion and consideration at the moment. I obviously cannot give any more precise details about them. My hon. Friend suggested that all local authorities should be represented on their hospital management committees. It is difficult to make hard and fast rules about this problem, because in some vast cities like Liverpool there are three or more hospital management committees. In other areas there is one committee covering in some cases eight or nine local authority areas. If every local authority area is to have one or two members, there would be complete unbalance over the whole range of the committees. The fact is that the majority of the hospital management committees have some members who also


happen to be members of the local authority though not nominated as local authority members. Although this matter was investigated by the Guillebaud Committee, it was not recommended that members should be nominated directly from county health or other authorities.
I can assure my hon. Friend that on the mental health side we recognise the size of the problem. Over the last five years it has been the policy to give deliberate priority to the mental hospitals. Not only have we provided the "Mental Million" but the hospitals are giving a large slice of the new building programme of some £17 million over the next few years. Up to 31st March this year the regional hospital boards had provided for 8,700 new beds-3,300 mental and 5,400 mental deficiency. Apart from further beds being provided out of the boards' allocations, there are another 6,800 beds coming forward which will be covered by the centrally financed programme. That is a very substantial increase in hospital beds.
My hon. Friend raised the question of nurses' quarters. That is a problem which must be settled locally. On the one hand there are strong and understandable opinions that the strain of mental nursing is such that qualified and trained staff should have the opportunity to live outside. That is a choice which must be retained or else in many cases we should not be able to obtain the necessary staff. There are also a large number of mental nursing staff who are married and work part-time. Their services are invaluable. I appreciate the difficulty about foreigners who may not have homes in this country and there is also the problem of the remote hospitals. That is a matter which can be decided only from area to area.
The position in the North-East Metropolitan area is reasonably good. In two of the mental hospitals, including Goodmayes, there is surplus accommodation for female nurses, because of the shortage of available staff. There is lack of accommodation at Claybury, but the board has a scheme in mind to improve the position.
There are in the country six special wards for mentally sick children, but of course the major problem is mental deficiency. Of the 6,900 on the waiting list, 3,320 are children under sixteen. On 5th March this year the waiting list in Essex was 173, and, as I said in answer to a Question on that date, the average waiting time is approximatley two-and-ahalf years. I do not pretend that this is satisfactory. But a large proportion of our new beds for mental deficiency hospitals will be available for children. There are 108 additional beds for children nearly ready at South Ockendon and I hope that a further 80 beds will be provided as part of the 1957–58 programme.
In Ilford there are two occupation centres for mental defectives; one for juniors, where there are 55 children on the register, although the centre has a capacity for 70, and a centre for senior boys where there are 59 on the register. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising these questions. He can rest assured that mental health has a real priority in the Ministry and although I cannot comment on his financial suggestions, we are doing all in our power within the financial limits imposed on us to give a "fair crack of the whip" to the mental health side.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.